In re Dill’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 1993
most recently cited
2 state decisions
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““X. MRPC X.3 [X992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 248]—in that Respondent has failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients. “2. MRPC X.4 [X992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 25X]—in that Respondent has failed to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter and has failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from a legal client. “3. MRPC X.X6 [X992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 286]—in that (X) the Respondent has failed to terminate or withdraw from the representation of a client where the lawyer was discharged; or (2) the lawyer’s conduct materially impaired the lawyer’s ability to represent the clients. “4. Supreme Court Rule 207 [X992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. X60]—in that the Respondent has failed to cooperate with the Disciplinary Administrator’s investigation of both of these cases.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Dill
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.