4 Cal. 3d 786 - Himmel v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
188 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently December 1995 · most notably 11 Cal. 3d 210 - Emslie v. State Bar (1974), 6 Cal. 3d 562 - In Re Higbie (1972)
188 state decisions
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 64 Cal. 2d 787 - Zitny v. State Bar of California · Simmons v. State Bar · 3 Cal. 3d 346 - Crooks v. State Bar · Yapp v. State Bar · 2 Cal. 3d 927 - Lee v. State Bar
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In meeting this burden, the petitioner must demonstrate that the charges of unprofessional conduct are not sustained by convincing proof and to a reasonable certainty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ll reasonable doubts will be resolved in favor of the accused....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) That during the first six months of the period of probation he shall be suspended from the practice of law in California; (2) That during the period of probation, he shall comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California; (3) That during the period of probation, he shall report not later than January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year or part thereof during which the probation is in effect in writing to the San Francisco office of the State Bar of California certifying by affidavit or under penalty of perjury (provided, however, that if the effective date of probation is less than 30 days preceding any of said dates, he shall file the report on the due date next following the due date after the effective date): (a) in his first report, (i) that he has read the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California since the effective date of the probation, (ii) that he has complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and said Rules of Professional Conduct since the effective date of the probation and (iii) if he is in possession of clients’ funds, that he has deposited such funds in a bank or trust company, authorized to do business in the State of California, in a bank account separate from his own account and clearly designated as “Clients’ Funds Account” or “Trust Funds Account,” or words of similar import (identifying the bank account), that the funds continuously ”
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.