In re Hotchkiss
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment disbarring the appellant rendered upon the overruling of the demurrer in the Eighteenth District Court, County of San Diego. McNealy, J.
1Opinion of the Court
McKinstry, J.:
These are proceedings to “ remove” an attorney-at-law. Section 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, that, when the proceedings are not initiated by the Court of its own motion, but are commenced at the instance of another person, the “ accusation” must be verified by oath “ to the effect that the charges therein contained are true.” Section 446 requires: “ Where a pleading is verified, it must be by the affidavit of a party, unless the parties are absent from the county where the attorney resides, or from some cause unable to verify it, or the facts are within the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Silcox v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Lantz v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Bold v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Lassen v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- In re Disbarment of HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.