Legal Opinion

Geibel v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided August 7, 1939No. L. A. 16511; L. A. 16510PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Petitioners Martin E. Geibel and Charles R. Morfoot seek to set aside our final judgment suspending them from the practice of the law. (Geibel v. State Bar, 11 Cal. (2d) 412 [79 Pac. (2d) 1073].) Their joint “Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment” was ordered placed on the calendar and is now before us after oral argument. The contention is that all proceedings against them should be dismissed with prejudice for the reason that the recommendation of suspension made by the Board of Governors to this court was not by a majority vote of the entire board, as required by rule 34, Rules…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lake v. BonyngeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Napa Valley Electric Co. v. Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Cadenasso v. Bank of ItalyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Southern California Edison Co. v. Railroad CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Peterson v. WeissbeinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. In Re Rose VCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Funeral Dirs. Ass'n. v. Bd. of Funeral Dirs. & EmbalmersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Pratt v. Coast Trucking, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. Pickering v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. McDonough v. GarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

15 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