Legal Opinion
Matter of Shay
California Supreme Court
Decided July 31, 1911No. Crim. No. 1684PublishedCited by 11 opinions
PROCEEDINGS to punish an attorney at law for a contempt of court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
This proceeding was instituted in consequence of the fact coming to the knowledge of the court that the following letter, dated March 25, 1910, had been written at San Francisco and sent to J. W. McKinley at Los Angeles, to wit:
“Dear Sir: I have just wired you copy of order this day entered by the supreme court in the case of Duncam, versus the Superior Court, Imperial County, et, al. I enclose copy of the order. I also enclose the court’s copy of petitioner’s points and authorities on application for writ of prohibition. Please make copies for your use and return to me as soon as possible.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Board of State Harbor Commissioners v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Lawrence National Bank v. KowalskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Malone v. BoschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- In Re BuckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- In Re McKinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- CarlLee v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Daily v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.