Call v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 1985
20 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 43 Cal. 2d 243 - In Re Hallinan · 39 Cal. 2d 161 - Clark v. State Bar · 10 Cal. 2d 147 - In Re Hatch · Stephens v. State Bar · Lantz 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile `good faith of an attorney is a matter to be considered in determining whether discipline should be imposed for acts done through ignorance or mistake' ( Call v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 104, 111 [ 287 P.2d 761 ]), the lack of an evil intent does not immunize the attorney's conduct from a finding of moral turpitude.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[g]ross carelessness and negligence constitute violations of the oath of an attorney to faithfully discharge his duties to the best of his knowledge and ability, and involve moral turpitude as they breach the fiduciary relationship owed to clients.”
2 later decisions 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.