Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 SW2D 386 - Arnett v. State

Arnett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 1993
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1993

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

6019571960197019801990decided

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 Hexter Title & Abstract Co. v. Grievance Committee · Houtchens v. Mercer · Erback v. Donald · Hankamer v. Templin, Clk. · Butcher v. Tinkle

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

  1. ““In 1933 the Legislature enacted Penal Code, Article 430a, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., Acts 1933, p. 835, 1 which carefully defined what constituted the practice of law and designated who were prohibited from so practicing. In 1939 the Legislature went one step further and enacted the State Bar Act, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stat. Art. 320a — 1, Act 1939, 46th Leg., p. 64, which had for its purpose the further regulation of the practice of law. That act created the organization known as the State Bar, composed of the registered licensed attorneys of the State, and constituted it an administrative agency of the judicial department. The same act em powered the Supreme Court, with the approval of a majority of the registered licensed lawyers, to prescribe rules and regulations ‘for disciplining, suspending, and disbarring attorneys at law; for the conduct of the State Bar; and prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys at law.’ The act prohibited those not members of the State Bar from practicing law, and empowered the agency there created to carry out the purposes of the act. The primary purpose of the Legislature in the enactment of the above legislation was to protect the public by eliminating from the law profession those morally unfit to enjoy the privileges and those lacking in proper training and other qualifications necessary to perform the services required of an attorney. * * * It is apparent, therefore, that those who are to be entrusted with the oppor”
    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.