Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Rohde v. Sachs

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1891No. 221PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Original Application for Mandamus. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hoyt, J.

— By his demurrer to the alternative writ issued herein, the respondent admits the entry of an order, as follows:

“On this 28th day of March, A. 3>. 1891, in open court, while the Hon. Morris B. Sachs, a judge of the superior court of the State of Washington, was engaged as such judge in deciding a motion pending in the case of Nickels-burg v. Stencil et al., then pending in the superior court of Jefferson county, Wash., over which the said Morris B. Sachs was then presiding as judge thereof, one William J. *374Rohde, an attorney of record of said…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Paul v. StanleyWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Sloan v. MitchellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. In re WaughWashington Supreme Court · 1903
  4. In re DunnNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
  5. State ex rel. Martin v. PendergastWashington Supreme Court · 1905

4 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