In re Wellcome
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- West Coast Home Improvement Co. v. Contractors' State Licence Board (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)
- Fish v. the State Bar (Cal. 1931)
- In re Morganstern (Cal. Ct. App. 1923)
- In re Vaughan (Cal. 1922)
- State ex rel. Healy v. District Court of the Second Judicial District (Mont. 1902)
- In re Wellcome (Mont. 1899)
- State ex rel. Kehoe v. McRae (Fla. 1905)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
— The attorney general has applied to this court for the issuance of a commission out of this court, and under the seal thereof, to take the deposition of one James Marshall, residing at Minneapolis, in the state of Minnesota. The accused has filed written objections to the issuance of such a commission upon the ground that the statute does not authorize the proceeding, and because the accused has a right to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and because there is no constitutional power in the court to issue the commission prayed for.
The contention of the accused is that he has a constitutional right to face the witnesses testifying in the case. But a proceeding in disbarment is not a criminal prosecution. This was held in the former opinions filed herein. (In re Wellcome, ante, pages 140, 213, 58 Pac. 45, 47.) Section 16, Article III. of the Constitution, relating to the rights of an accused per sou in a criminal prosecution, is therefore inapplicable.
Ordered, that the commission issue, directed to the person to be agreed upon by the attorney general and the accused or his counsel.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.