People v. Hartman’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2017
4 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.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The determination of the "foreign jurisdiction," here the United States Tax Court, that respondent engaged in conduct justifying his suspension is well established by the record in this case. Respondent did not stumble over a technical provision of the Internal Revenue Code or a special rule of the tax court. To the contrary, he engaged in conduct which Colorado, as well as other jurisdictions, has an interest in preventing. Respondent's conduct was measured by the same standards in the foreign jurisdiction as would be used to gauge his conduct if performed in a Colorado forum. As such, we find that C.R.C.P. 241.17 is applicable for the purpose of conclusively establishing misconduct previously adjudicated by a "foreign jurisdiction," the tax court. Moreover, if respondent's argument were accepted, this court would be saying, in effect, that it would be all right for an attorney, an officer of the court, to file frivolous pleadings in some fora, but not in others. The Code of Professional Responsibility as well as prior rulings of this court, however, have consistently held attorneys to the highest level of professional conduct-whether the attorney is practicing in federal court, state court, or before government agencies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Bode“Except as otherwise provided by these Rules, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction of misconduct constituting grounds for discipline of an attorney shall, for purposes of proceedings pursuant to these Rules, conclusively establish such misconduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Bode“; or 4) the misconduct proved warrants a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Bode
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.