Coats v. Seattle Electric Co.

79 P. 484, 37 Wash. 8, 1905 Wash. LEXIS 658
Washington Supreme Court·Decided February 4, 1905·No. No. 5451·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to strike the appellant’s brief, for the reason that it refers to' the trial judge in language grossly discourteous, unprofessional, scandalous, and impertinent. An examination of the brief convinces us that the language used is properly described in the motion to strike. We deem it unnecessary to- quote the language, or to make further comment. Counsel should know their rights and their duties as officers of the court- without lectures or admonitions from us. We trust the striking of the brief will be a sufficient penalty for the breach of professional duty complained of, and that the offense will not be repeated. The appellant is allowed thirty days in which to file a proper brief. The brief of the respondent may stand, or counsel may, at their option, file a further brief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Coats v. Seattle Electric Co., 79 P. 484, 37 Wash. 8, 1905 Wash. LEXIS 658 (Wash. 1905).

79 P. 484 (Coats v. Seattle Electric Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1988
Kellogg v. Wilcox
283 P.2d 677 (Washington Supreme Court, 1955)