47 Cal. 3d 1152 - Keller v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably 48 Cal. 3d 805 - Calfarm Insurance v. Deukmejian (1989), Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)
4 federal appellate · 35 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Railway Labor Act) · 48 U.S.C. § 872
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · Roberts v. United States Jaycees · Graham v. Richardson · Wooley v. Maynard
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'such additional burden or inconvenience is hardly sufficient to justify contravention of the constitutional mandate,'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the bar is considered a government agency, then the distinction between revenue derived from mandatory dues and revenue from other sources is immaterial. A government agency may use unrestricted revenue, whether derived from taxes, dues, fees, tolls, tuition, donation, or other sources, for any purposes within its authority.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Laws are the business of lawyers. The drafting of a proposed law, the understanding of the relationship between that law and existing legislation, and the appreciation of the practical impact of the proposed legislation are matters which often require expert legal knowledge and judgment. Whatever the subject of the proposed law, it is likely that among the members of the State Bar are some with the needed expertise, whose collective advice can lead to significant improvements in the legislative proposal. “The state has a valid interest in drawing upon [lawyers’] training and experience in order to promote improvements in the administration of justice and to advance jurisprudence. The better attuned the legal machinery is to the public’s needs of health, safety, and welfare, the better the state will be able to perform its job of protecting and serving the public. The input and feedback on proposed legislation and court rules is invaluable to the state in fine-tuning its legislative and judicial systems.””
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.