48 Wis. 2d 364 - State v. Eisenberg’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg (2004), 219 Wis. 2d 391 - State v. Eugenio (1998)
40 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 Cameron v. Johnson · 27 Wis. 2d 687 - City of Madison v. Geier · In re Cannon · State v. Baker · State v. Preston
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“License to practice law in this state is granted on implied understanding that an attorney shall at all times demean himself in proper manner and refrain from such practices which bring disrepute upon himself, the profession and the courts. This implied understanding is also affirmed by the oath taken by the attorney on admission to practice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is used and its application to lawyer disciplinary proceedings restrict its meaning to conduct that reflects adversely on a person's fitness as a lawyer. 4 Rejecting an overbreadth argument challenging the Attorney's Oath provision requiring an attorney to maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers, we said,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) That Alan Eisenberg publicly charged Judge Krue-ger with conduct (unspecified) for which a criminal warrant could issue; (2) That Alan Eisenberg predicted the Judge would resign for "personal reasons" within a short period rather than face prosecution; (3) That Alan Eisenberg arranged for and Sydney signed checks in payment of newspaper advertisements soliciting complaints against Judge Krueger; (4) That in concert the defendants pressured the Judge unwillingly to appoint them to an advisory committee concerning the administration of his court; (5) That in concert the defendants forced the Judge to publicly read a press release announcing their appointment for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves and demonstrating their subjugation of and their dominance over the Judge; and (6) We find that the above acts of the defendants constitute unprofessional conduct tending to bring the courts into disrepute and contempt and that such conduct is contrary to the duties of the defendants as licensed attorneys and in violation of their oaths as attorneys, taken pursuant to sec. 256.29, Stats.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.