Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Call v. State Bar

California Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1955No. S. F. 19151Published

1ConcurrenceCartee, J.

— I concur in the result reached by the court. I agree with the opinion insofar as it expresses the rule that negligence of an attorney is not a proper ground for disciplinary action. I do not, however, approve of the holding of the majority in the following cases cited in the opinion for the reasons stated in the concurring or dissenting opinions thereto. (See Trusty v. State Bar, 16 Cal.2d 550 [107 P.2d 10], dissenting opinion at p. 554; In re McKenna, 16 Cal.2d 610 [107 P.2d 258], dissenting opinion at p. 612; Stephens v. State Bar, 19 Cal.2d 580 [122 P.2d 549], concurring opinion at p.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Clark v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Stephens v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Herron v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Trusty v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  5. In Re McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

1 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