State ex rel. Shackleford v. McElhinney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) The admission of a person to the bar as an attorney at law is a judgment, and confers upon the person admitted valuable property rights, of which he cannot be deprived by. the arbitrary action of either a court or legislature, but only upon a judicial hearing on charges presented, in which he is given an' opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Garland ex parte, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333; Hefron ex parte, 7 How.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) The admission of a person to the bar as an attorney at law is a judgment, and confers upon the person admitted valuable property rights, of which he cannot be deprived by. the arbitrary action of either a court or legislature, but only upon a judicial hearing on charges presented, in which he is given an' opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Garland ex parte, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333; Hefron ex parte, 7 How. (Miss.) 127; In re Cooper, 22 N. V. 81; Fletcher v Dhng’erfield, 20 Cal. 427; People v. Turner, 1 Cal, 150; Fish v. Printing Co., 102 Mo. App. 6; State v. Laughlin, 73 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodson, J.
— This is an original proceeding brought in this court, by the relator, seeking by mandamus to compel the respondent to recognize and per*598mit the former to practice law in the circuit court of St. Louis county of which the latter is the duly elected, qualified and acting judge.
The facts of the case stand uncontradicted, and are fully stated.in the return, and are as follows (formal parts omitted):
“Now comes the said respondent, and for his return to the alternative writ of mandamus in the above entitled cause (hereto attached), says that said relator ought not to have writ of peremptory…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- State v. LoomisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- People ex rel. Mulford v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
- Hunt v. SearcySupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Ex parte SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1867
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Pence v. Kansas City Laundry Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Bussiere's Admisnistrator v. SaymanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- In Re CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Sloan v. MitchellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1933
- State Ex Rel. Hurwitz v. NorthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.