Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Russell

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 10, 1980No. 51,423, 51,424Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPrager, J.

While concurring with the majority decision with respect to the Soptick complaint, I respectfully dissent as to the majority decision on the Haas complaint. The majority has correctly noted the general rule recognized in State v. Nelson, 210 Kan. 637, 640, 504 P.2d 211 (1972), that an attorney’s constitutional right of free speech is tempered by his obligation to the courts and the bar, a limitation not imposed upon the ordinary citizen. Recause of the seriousness of any state infringement upon a constitutionally protected freedom, the court has properly limited its ability to discipline…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Coleman v. MacLennanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
  3. Bradford v. MahanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  4. State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1972
  5. State v. BalchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884

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

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

Powered by the Exa API