Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 Kan. App. 2d 639 - State v. Robertson

30 Kan. App. 2d 639 - State v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2023

8 state decisions

40200220102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Van Cleave · United States v. Young · State v. Jasper · State v. Jenkins · Douglas v. United States

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. ““We recognize that an attorney’s best defense to a disciplinary complaint is to provide the defendant with the best possible defense and, as such, a pending disciplinary complaint does not necessarily create a conflict of interest. However, we also recognize that under certain circumstances, a disciplinary complaint could create an actual conflict of interest, depending on the nature of the complaint.” Robertson, 30 Kan. App. 2d at 644 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.