Kepler v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably In the Matter of Hiss (1975), In Re Stump (1938)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 77 Cal. App. 495 - In Re Cate · 60 Cal. App. 279 - In Re Cate · 77 Cal. App. 260 - In Re Nisbet · 84 Cal. App. 137 - Koepple v. Morrison · 79 Cal. App. 639 - In Re Kepler
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon an application by a disbarred attorney for reinstatement, the object of the court, as observed in Kepler v. State Bar, 216 Cal. 52, 55 [ 13 P.2d 509 ], 'is to determine whether or not the character of the applicant is such that he should be admitted to an office of trust, and recommended to the public as a trustworthy person, fit to be consulted by others in matters of confidence. [Citations.] In such proceeding the burden of proof is upon the one who seeks, after disbarment, to accomplish a restoration to the ranks of the legal profession, and before the court may grant the petition for reinstatement, it must be satisfied and fully convinced by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward rehabilitation of his character has been successful. [Citations.] It is only reasonable that the person seeking reinstatement, after disbarment, should be required to present stronger proof of his present honesty and integrity than one seeking admission for the first time whose character has never been in question ... The proof presented must be sufficient to overcome the court's former adverse judgment of applicant's character. [Citations.]' (See, also, Wettlin v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 862, 869 [ 151 P.2d 255 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the burden of proof is upon the one who seeks ... restoration to the ranks of the legal profession, and before the court may grant the petition for reinstatement it must be satisfied and fully convinced by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward rehabilitation of his character has been successful. (Citations.) It is only reasonable that the person seeking reinstatement, after disbarment, should be required to present stronger proof of his present honesty and integrity than one seeking admission for the first time whose character has never been in question. In other words, in an application for reinstatement, although treated by the court as a proceeding for admission, the proof presented must be sufficient to overcome the court's former adverse judgment of applicant's character.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Werner v. State Bar
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.