Legal Opinion

Paul v. Stanley

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1932No. 23739. Department OnePublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerman, J.

Plaintiffs Charles H. Paul and Cecil C. Hallin, who are duly licensed lawyers engaged in the practice of their profession in Cowlitz county, Washington, have instituted this suit on behalf of the attorneys practicing law in Cowlitz county, the people and the courts of the state of Washington. The purpose of the suit is to enjoin the defendant from practicing law without a license.

When the case came on for trial in the superior court, the defendant appeared in his own behalf, unassisted by any lawyer. He was called as an adverse witness, and, among other things, testified to the following :…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. . Title Guarantee Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
  2. Walker v. StoneWashington Supreme Court · 1897
  3. State ex rel. Rohde v. SachsWashington Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. West Virginia State Bar v. EarleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Hexter Title & Abstract Co. v. Grievance CommitteeTexas Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
  5. Fitchette v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934

42 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