McCormick v. Sheridan

Citations

• 3 Cal. Unrep. 35
• 20 P. 24
• 1888 Cal. LEXIS 979

Syllabus

<p>Contempt—In Petition for Rehearing—Disavowal.—A petition for rehearing stated that “how or why the honorable commissioner should have so effectually and substantially ignored and disregarded the uncontradicted testimony .... we do not know.....It seems that neither the transcript nor our briefs could have fallen under” the commissioner’s observation. “There is not a scintilla of evidence to the contrary, and yet the honorable commissioner assumes,” etc., and “in very euphuistic language says,” etc. “A more disingenuous and misleading statement of the evidence could not well be made.” “It is substantially .... untrue, and unwarranted.” “The decision .... seems to us to be a travesty of the evidence.” Held, that counsel drafting the petition was guilty of contempt committed in the face of the court, notwithstanding a disavowal of disrespectful intention.1</p>