Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 998 P2D 833 - In Re Halverson

In Re Halverson’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
4
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen (2003), 156 Wash. 2d 196 - In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Poole (2006)

74 state decisions

610200020102020decided

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 115 Wash. 2d 60 - State v. Camarillo · City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · 119 Wash. 2d 251 - Hizey v. Carpenter · 117 Wash. 2d 720 - Haley v. Medical Disciplinary Board · 128 Wash. 2d 492 - City of Seattle v. Fontanilla

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

  1. “Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to the client.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) prior disciplinary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (c) a pattern of misconduct; (d) multiple offenses; (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; (h) vulnerability of victim; (i) substantial experience in the practice of law; (j) indifference to making restitution; (k) illegal conduct including voluntary use of controlled dangerous substances.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “`unique experience and perspective in the administration of sanctions.'”
    4 later decisions 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.