State v. Keener’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2006 · most notably State v. Robinson (2006), 385 So. 2d 83 - In Interest of DB (1980)
2 district · 25 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 Fuentes v. Shevin · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. · North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the moral and ethical obligation of the bar to make representation available to the public. (See, Canon 2, Code of Professional Responsibility, 220 Kan. cx .) Quite often, fulfillment of that obligation involves the representation of a client, particularly a criminal defendant, for little or no remuneration. Enactment of K.S.A. 22-4501, et seq. has served to relieve some of the hardships involved in fulfilling an attorney’s obligation to provide legal representation to the public; but it has not cancelled the attorney’s ethical responsibility to provide representation without compensation if necessary. Court appointed counsel has no constitutional right to be compensated, much less to receive full and adequate compensation which may have been received if the same time had been spent on a fee-paying client’s problems. (See, United States, v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633 [9th Cir. 1965].)” 224 Kan. at 102 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find no constitutional infirmity in the recoupment statute. A defendant receives notice of the existence of the debt for legal services by certified mail at his last known address prior to the time the sum is made a judgment of record. He is given sixty days to pay the debt. Implicit in that sixty-day delay is the right to object to the judicial administrator concerning the amount of the expenditure. Even after the sum becomes a judgment the right to a hearing is present when the state attempts to collect the judgment by execution or garnishment. In either situation, the debtor has the right to be heard and, if he wishes, to contest the validity of the judgment. The right to contest a judgment at a collection proceeding satisfies due process requirements. (See, United States v. Durka, 490 F.2d 478 [7th Cir. 1973]; Stroinski v. Office of Public Defender, 134 N.J.Super. 21 , 338 A.2d 202 [1975]. See also, People v. Amor, 12 Cal.3d 20, 114 Cal.Rptr. 765 , 523 P.2d 1173 [1974].) [ 577 P.2d at 1185 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.