People v. Goldstein’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2016
13 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 505 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on People v. Bennett · Matter of Silverman · Matter of Kotok · People v. Distel · People v. Abelman
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) mental disability ... [may be considered as a mitigating factor] when: (1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a ... mental disability; (2) the ... mental disability caused the misconduct; (3) the respondent's recovery from the ... mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Reynolds“We are mindful that the primary purpose of attorney discipline is the protection of the public, People v. Grenemyer, 745 P.2d 1027, 1029 (Colo.1987), not to mete out punishment to the offending lawyer. As officers of the court, however, lawyers are charged with obedience to the law, and intentional violation of those laws subject an attorney to the severest discipline. Goldstein, 887 P.2d at 643-44 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Sheffer“respondent's misconduct ... involved not only a serious crime, see C.R.C.P. 241.16(e), but also indifference to his professional obligations as an officer of the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Sheffer
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.