Matter of Danford
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
Upon an accusation purporting to charge William J. Danford, an attorney at law, with a violation of his professional duties, a hearing was had in the superior court of Los Angeles County, and that court gave judgment depriving the accused of the right to practice as attorney or counselor in the courts of the state of California. This is an appeal by Danford from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for new trial.
The first point- made is that the accusation fails to state facts justifying disbarment, and that, therefore, appellant’s ■demurrer should have been sustained. The…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ex Parte WallSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Cox v. DelmasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Herrlich v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Melde v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- People ex rel. Hoffman v. HechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Carpenter v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Emslie v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- In Re TrombleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- People v. BergerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.