Pickering v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 71 - Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999), 28 Cal. 3d 465 - Giovanazzi v. State Bar (1980)
38 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 Peck v. the State Bar · 2 Cal. 2d 75 - Marsh v. State Bar · Geibel v. State Bar · 8 Cal. 2d 167 - Tapley v. State Bar · Rohe v. State Bar
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 6103 of the Business and Professions Code * * * provides that any violation by an attorney of his oath or professional duties constitutes cause for suspension or disbarment. “And section 6068 of that code prescribes, in part, that it shall be the duty of an attorney ‘never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial oificer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.' The presentation to a court of a statement of fact known to be false presumes cm intent to secure a determination based upon it and is a clear violation of the quoted provision. “The conduct denounced by the Business and Professions Code is not the act of an attorney by which he successfully, misleads the court, but the presentation of a statement of fact, known by him to be false, which tends to do so. It is the endeavor to secure an advantage by means of falsity which is denounced. “The lack of direct evidence of an intent to deceive or that the petitioner acted out of malice or with the hope of profit does not, as contended by him, compel a determination in his favor. Nor is the fact that no one was deceived or damaged a defense * , 24 Cal.2d 141, 144-145 , 148 P.2d 1, 3 ; italics added.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.