Clavey v. Lord
Citations
- 87 Cal. 413
- 25 P. 493
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 993
Syllabus
<p>Appeal—Review of Evidence — Credibility of Witnesses — Finding' Rendered Immaterial. —• The' findings of the court below will not he disturbed upon appeal, when there is evidence to support them, and nothing appears in the record to show that the court did not justly estimate the credibility of the witnesses; nor will a particular finding be disturbed, if other findings, justified by the evidence, render the issue immaterial.</p> <p>Verdict in Equity Case — Power of Court. ■—The verdict in an equity case is only advisory to the court until adopted, and the court may of its own motion disregard it and set it aside.</p> <p>Delay in Setting Aside Verdict — Waiver of Objection.—The fact that no action was taken by the court in respect to the verdict for three months after it was rendered, and after each party had moved for judginent upon it, is no objection to the action of the court in then disregarding it, and hearing additional evidence, it not appearing what was the cause of the delay, or that any objection thereto was urged by the appellants.</p> <p>Id. — Opening Case for Further Evidence — Discretion.—It is within the discretion of the court to permit further evidence, when it sets aside the verdict in an equity case; and if both parties are permitted to introduce additional evidence without any apparent restriction, and there is no showing of surprise, or of want of opportunity to produce any additional available evidence, no abuse of discretion appears.</p> <p>Limits of Discretionary Power — Abuse of Discretion. — Discretionary judicial power may be exercised either way, and the only limitation upon its exercise is, that it must not be abused; and while it may be difficult to define what is meant by abuse of judicial discretion, one of its essential attributes is, that it must plainly appear to effect injustice.</p> <p>Evidence— Impeachment of Witness — Contradictory Statement after Testimony Given — Insufficient Objection.—The question of the admissibility o
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that attorney did not violate Rule 8.4 (a) (4) where his conduct did not show evidence that he misled or attempted to mislead others
- concluding that attorney did not violate Rule 8.4 (a) (4) where his conduct did not show evidence that he misled or attempted to mislead others
- “Rule 8.4 (a) (4) prohibits ‘professional conduct involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,’ that is, conduct that is intended or likely to mislead another.”
- Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is meant to reach “conduct that is intended or likely to mislead another”
- Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is meant to reach “conduct that is intended or likely to mislead another”
- “Rule 8.4 (a) (4) prohibits ‘professional conduct involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,’ that is, conduct that is intended or likely to mislead another.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Vanclief
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.