Legal Opinion

In re Wellcome

Montana Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1899No. 1,401PublishedCited by 17 opinions

In the matter of the disbarment of John B. Wellcome. Accused” objects to the sufficiency of the accusation.

1Per curiam

— After our decision holding that this Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges made against the accused herein, but that we would decline to inquire into the truth of the charges unless the accusation stated facts warranting the exercise of our jurisdiction, and which 'were not stated in the accusation considered on the former hearing (ante p. 140, 58 Pac. 45), the attorney general filed affidavits stating the grounds upon which he asks the interposition of this Court. The affidavit of the attorney general is as follows:

‘ ‘Affiant shows that during the session of the last…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. McClaughertyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. In re MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1850
  3. Case of AustinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
  4. In re OWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Jackson v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1858

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Ex Parte ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. In Re Proceedings Against Richards for DisbarmentSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
  3. In Re VaughanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. In Re CarlsenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
  5. People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. MeyerovitzIllinois Supreme Court · 1917

12 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