Legal Opinion
In Re O'Connell
California Supreme Court
Decided October 28, 1926No. Docket No. S.F. 11955PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.
The petitioner, Daniel O’Connell, was precluded from practicing as an attorney and counselor in the courts of the state by an order of this court made December 28, 1920. (In re O’Connell, 184 Cal. 584, 588 [194 Pac. 1010].) On April 28, 192'4, he made application to the district court of appeal for the first district, division two, for reinstatement. His application was granted, but, before the judgment became final, this court, on petition of the San Francisco Bar Association, transferred the cause here “for hearing and decision.” That the court had power to order the transfer cannot be…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Frohwerk v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- O'CONNELL v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- In re CoffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- In Re the Admission of WellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- In re Disbarment of HenryIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In Re StumpCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938
- In re EganSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
- In Re McAllisterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- In Re CateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- In Re the Petition for Reinstatement to Practice Law of BravermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.