Legal Opinion

Bar Assn. of San Francisco v. Cantrell

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 5, 1920No. Civ. No. 3437PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrittain, J.

The Bar Association of San Francisco accused Russell W. Cantrell, an attorney and counselor at law, of certain acts in his office as attorney which were alleged to have involved moral turpitude and dishonesty within the scope of subdivision 5 of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that an attorney and counselor may be removed or suspended “for the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the same be committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or counselor at law, or otherwise, and. whether the same constitute a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ex Parte WallSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. Sanborn v. KimballSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1875
  3. In re OWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Bergin v. HaightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. In re TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Katz v. RosenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  2. Bar Assn. of S. F. v. CantrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Santa Barbara Tie & Pole Co. v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API