John Doe and Richard H. Foster v. The State Bar of California, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr.
John DOE and Richard H. Foster, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. the STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Michael E. Wald and David L. Frey, Jr., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the judgment of the district court dismissing this action to en *26 join disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California against appellant John Doe. Appellants contend that the disciplinary proceedings violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After a careful review of the record and the briefs of counsel, it is our opinion that the trial judge correctly concluded that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California for the reasons stated in his opinion.
Doe v. State Bar of California, 415 F.Supp. 308 (N.D.Cal.1976).
See also MacKay v. Nesbett, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 960 , 90 S.Ct. 435 , 24 L.Ed.2d 425 (1969).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“[F]ederal courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary proceedings of the State Bar of California[.]” (citations omitted))
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.