Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 800 P.2d 806 - In Re Knowlton

In Re Knowlton’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2025

11 state decisions

401990200020102020decided

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 State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne · Matter of Arrick · State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cantrell · DISCIPLINARY BD. OF HAWAII, ETC. v. Bergan · 25 Utah 2d 1 - In Re Bridwell

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]e may accord less deference to Board findings because of the unique nature of disciplinary actions and our knowledge of the nature of the practice of law. Although we adopt the “arbitrary” or “capricious” standard for evaluating the factual findings of the Board, we do so only as a general proposition and reserve the right to draw inferences from the basic facts, which may differ from the inferences drawn by the Board. Moreover, there is a valid distinction for review purposes between the Board’s findings and its recommendations. We have observed that “we do not consider the recommendations of punishment made by the Bar to be in the same category as we do their findings of fact, because it is our responsibility to discipline an erring attorney. ...” We need not, therefore, defer to the Board in deciding what may constitute appropriate discipline. In this regard, it is imperative to bear in mind that the review of attorney discipline proceedings is fundamentally different from judicial review of administrative agency proceedings. The Utah Constitution authorizes this Court’s power to regulate the practice of law, and that includes the promulgation of rules of discipline and enforcement of ethical obligations of attorneys.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In sum, this Court will ordinarily presume that the [lower tribunal’s] findings of fact are correct, although we may set those findings aside if they are not supported by the evidence. If the evidence warrants, we may make an independent judgment regarding the appropriate level of discipline, although we always give serious consideration to the findings and [rulings] of the [district court].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “perform[] essential functions in investigating complaints, adjudicating facts, and recommending discipline.”
    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.