In re Angst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 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).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Black · In re Saville