Leahy v. Dunlap
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to District Court of Parle County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
Two grounds are relied upon for the reversal of the judgment in this case.
First. That the court allowed “theattorney of defendants ” below to withdraw from the case, and proceeded to trial and judgment without notice to the clients of said attorney that their attorney had withdrawn, and without “admonishing said attorney of his duty.”
We have never understood it to be the legal duty of a court in civil cases to see that the litigants were supplied with attorneys in every stage of the proceedings, and to be held responsible for an omission of such duty.
Undoubtedly it is within the discretion of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Calvat v. FranklinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932
- Cerussite Mining Co. v. AndersonColorado Court of Appeals · 1903
- Sandos v. Colorado State Department of Labor & EmploymentColorado Court of Appeals · 1980
- Calvat v. FranklinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932
- Calvat v. FranklinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.