49 Cal. 3d 114 - Chang v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably 53 Cal. 3d 21 - Grim v. State Bar (1991), 49 Cal. 3d 670 - Weller v. State Bar (1989)
27 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 37 Cal. 3d 122 - Tarver v. State Bar · 44 Cal. 3d 179 - Kapelus v. State Bar · 23 Cal. 3d 868 - Hamilton v. State Bar · 14 Cal. 3d 422 - Sodikoff v. State Bar · 43 Cal. 3d 564 - Frazer 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fraudulent and contrived misrepresentations to the State Bar may perhaps constitute a greater offense than misappropriation”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) During the first two years of probation, he is placed on actual suspension from the practice of law. (2) During the first year of probation, he shall make restitution to his clients. (3) 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. (4) During the period of probation, he shall file with the State Bar Court reports concerning his compliance with the conditions of probation as directed by the probation monitor referee. (5) Before the expiration of his period of actual suspension, petitioner shall take and pass the Professional Responsibility Examination. (6) Petitioner shall comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, including subdivision (a), within 30 days of the effective date of the decision of this court, and petitioner shall file the affidavit required by California Rules of Court, rule 955(c), within 40 days of the effective date of this decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bledsoe v. State Bar
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.