Legal Opinion
Sheller v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 6, 2008No. B190479PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, Acting P. J.
A Texas attorney appearing pro hac vice for plaintiffs in a class action sent a communication to prospective class members that contained at least one misrepresentation. The trial court issued an order to show cause why the attorney’s pro hac vice status should not be revoked. After a hearing, the trial court declined to revoke the attorney’s pro hac vice status, and instead ordered the attorney to reimburse the defendant for substantial attorney’s fees, as a condition of retaining his pro hac vice status. The trial court also formally reprimanded the Texas…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Leis v. FlyntSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Bauguess v. PaineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Steven Mark Lasar v. Ford Motor Company, and Lawrence SutterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. J. C. Penney Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Barry v. State Bar of Cal.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Clark v. Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Eisen v. Tavangarian, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Fairbanks v. Farmers New World Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.