In re Lockett’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2001
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on In re Jantz · In Re Jones
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.
““This is not a case of dishonesty or intentional harm to a client. It is a tragic example of human frailty and die consequences of addiction to crack cocaine. The panel makes a compelling case for probation, and we might have concurred had respondent appeared before this court and verified that he is participating in drug counseling and treatment and has continued to abstain from using illegal drugs. He failed to do either. Our ultimate goal here is to protect die public. See In re Jones, 252 Kan. 236, 239, 843 P.2d 709 (1992). We conclude diat goal can only be achieved in this case by indefinitely suspending the respondent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Phillips
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.