Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 Kan. 230 - In Re Pyle

In Re Pyle’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on In Re Lober · State v. Caenen · In Re Rumsey · In Re Bailey · In Re the Complaint Made Against Marietta

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

  1. ““In disciplinary proceedings, ‘this court considers the evidence, the findings of the disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. [Citation omitted.] Any attorney misconduct must be established by substantial, clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.’ In re Lober, 276 Kan. 633, 636 , 78 P.3d 442 (2003). “ ‘This court views the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations made by the disciplinary panel as advisory, but gives the final hearing report the same dignity as a special verdict by a jury or the findings of a trial court. Thus, the disciplinary panel’s report will be adopted where amply sustained by the evidence, but not where it is against the clear weight of the evidence. [Citations omitted.]’ Lober, 276 Kan. at 636-37 . Accord In re Pyle, 278 Kan. 230, 236 , 91 P.3d 1222 (2004) (quoting Lober).” In re Angst, 278 Kan. 500, 503-04 , 102 P.3d 388 (2004).”
    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.