Legal Opinion

Hildebrand v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 1941No. S. F. 16384PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Pursuant to an order issued by The State Bar of California, the petitioner, Clifton Hildebrand, an attorney at law, was directed to appear before Special Local Committee No. 3 for the county of Alameda on or about July 18, 1939, then and there to show cause why he should not be disciplined for alleged professional misconduct on four separate charges as set forth in the said order. The charges consisted of three counts of violation of the provisions of rule 2 (commonly known as the “solicitation” rule) and of violation, on one count, of rule 3 (generally referred to as the “ambulance…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Furman v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. In Re PetersenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. In Re Bar Association of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Golden v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Aydelotte v. State Bar of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Hallinan v. Committee of Bar ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Bernstein v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Hildebrand v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Crawford v. State Bar of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Alkow v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

21 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