In Re Bolton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

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

1. “who were present during respondent's testimony and who act as the eyes and ears of this court.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Mopsik · In Re Dixon

2. “Because much of this case turns on respondent’s subjective intent, we place great emphasis on the findings of the members of the hearing committee on this issue. | «The three members of the hearing committee, two of whom were attorneys and one of whom was a lay person drawn from the community, had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, including respondent, who testified in this matter. Unlike the disciplinary board and this court, the hearing committee was not disadvantaged by the review of a cold record and is in a superior position to observe the nuances of demeanor evidence not revealed in a record. See, e.g., In re A.J.F., 00-0948 (La.6/30/00), 764 So.2d 47 ; Adkins v. Huckabay, 99-3605 (La.2/25/00), 755 So.2d 206 . * ⅜ * While the evidence could support a contrary conclusion, we have observed in a civil context that where the fact finder is presented with two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them is not clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d at 840, 844 (La.1989). Although this court is the trier of fact in bar disciplinary cases, we are not prepared to disregard the credibility evaluations made by those committee members who were present during respondent’s testimony and who act as the eyes and ears of this court, [emphasis added].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 179 So. 3d 566 - In Re Donald R. PRYOR

3. “substantial misinterpretation of his intentions, caused by his failure to properly articulate his wishes to [the judge] and his feelings to the Court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Leblanc