Legal Opinion

Tyler v. Presley

California Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1887No. 12148PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Application for a writ of mandate. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.

Application for writ of mandate to the Superior Court of the county of Sonoma, commanding said court to allow Tyler to practice law in that court.

Tyler was by an order of this court, entered in December, 1886 (71 Cal. 353), suspended from practicing law in the courts of the state for two years, and until the payment of a certain sum of money. On application to the chief jusiyce of this court, a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States was allowed, citation issued and served, and bond filed. It is argued that the writ of error supersedes the order of suspension, and that Tyler…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. BUTCHERS'BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1870
  2. In re TylerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Kress v. CoreyNevada Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Clute v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
  4. Imperial Water Co. No. 3 v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. McCann v. Union Bank & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1935

14 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