Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

State v. Caenen

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 27, 1984No. 55,833PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Per curiam

This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the Board for Discipline of Attorneys (the Board) by Arno Windscheffel, Disciplinary Administrator, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 212 (232 Kan. clxvii). A panel of the Board, after a hearing, determined that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and had violated DR 2-103 (A) and (B) (232 Kan. clxxix) and DR 9-102 (B) (232 Kan. cxcii), and had failed to cooperate with the Disciplinary Administrator in violation of Rule 207 (232 Kan. clxiv), and recommended the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. In re R. M. J.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. In Re LandrithSupreme Court of Kansas · 2005
  2. In Re BergSupreme Court of Kansas · 1998
  3. In Re MatneySupreme Court of Kansas · 1987
  4. In Re PyleSupreme Court of Kansas · 2004
  5. Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. George P. Stanton, IIIWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2014

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API