gno.law

In Re Stevens

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 4315. · 1923-09-18 · Published · 219 P. 1014 · 63 Cal. App. 682 · 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 328

In the Matter of the Application of Walter H. Stevens for Reinstatement as an Attorney at Law.

Area
other
Panel
Nathaniel P. Conrey (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Conrey

CONREY, P. J.

The petitioner was disbarred by order of this court on the fourteenth day of June, 1917, because of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and dishonesty. On the eighth day of March, 1922, he filed a petition for reinstatement. That application was denied by *683 order of division, two of this court on the thirtieth day of September, 1922. The opinion of the court as delivered at that time contains a thorough review of the case.

(In re Stevens, 59 Cal. App. 251 [210 Pac. 442].)

Having carefully examined the present application and the numerous letters and affidavits offered in support thereof, we find that they are not materially different from those presented with the former application. The only difference, except as to form, consists in the fact that this application filed May 11, 1923, is about a year later in date, and that the letters and affidavits signed by the same persons and some others are of a correspondingly later date.

Assuming as we must (and there is nothing in the record which moves our minds to the contrary) that the court in division two was justified in its decision at that time, we think that, notwithstanding the additional lapse of time, the record as we find it does not show facts sufficient to warrant us in granting the present application.

The petition is denied.

Houser, J., and Curtis, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by