Simmons v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 1998 · most notably 6 Cal. 3d 562 - In Re Higbie (1972), 4 Cal. 3d 786 - Himmel v. State Bar (1971)
66 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 39 Cal. 2d 161 - Clark v. State Bar · 62 Cal. 2d 194 - McKinney v. State Bar · 64 Cal. 2d 153 - Johnstone v. State Bar of California · In Re Freiburghouse · Maggart 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A member of the State Bar shall not commingle the money or other property of a client with his own; and he shall promptly report to the client the receipt by him of all money and other property belonging to such client. Unless the client otherwise directs in writing, he shall promptly deposit his client’s 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. * * * [Quoted in Simmons v. State Bar of California, supra, 450 P.2d at 293 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. at 917 ].]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Burton
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.