In Re Zimmerman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘In disciplinary matters, we have a duty to examine die evidence and determine for ourselves die judgment to be entered. Although die report of the disciplinary panel is advisory only, it will be given die same dignity as a special verdict by a jury, or the findings of a trial court, and will be adopted where amply sustained by the evidence, or where it is not against the clear weight of die evidence, or where the evidence consisted of sharply conflicting testimony. [Citation omitted.] We apply these rules in considering die evidence, the findings of the panel, and die arguments of die parties in making our determination of whedier violations of KRPC exist, and if they do, deciding upon die appropriate discipline to be imposed. “ ‘Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (1997 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 224) provides in applicable part: “To warrant a finding of misconduct the charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” Clear and convincing evidence is defined in Modern Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Cinderella Homes, Inc., 226 Kan. 70, 78 , 596 P.2d 816 (1979), to mean “the witnesses to a fact must be found to be credible; die facts to which the witness testifies must be distinctly remembered; the details in connection widi the transaction must be narrated exactly and in order; the testimony must be clear, direct and weighty; and die witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to die facts in issue.” ’ ” In re Zimmerman, 270 Kan. 855, 858 , 19 P.3d 160 (2001) (quoting In re Berg, 264 ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Rausch · In Re Wall