member bar in Nevada

1941In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 26 , 292 P. 291 ; Dignan v. State Bar, 58 Nev. 82 , 70 P. (2d) 774 .

1941In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 26 , 292 P. 291 ; Dignan v. State Bar, 58 Nev. 82 , 70 P. (2d) 774 .

1970Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969); People v. Risenhoover, 73 Cal. Rptr. 533 , 447 P.2d 925, 936 (Cal. 1968); In Re Anderson, supra; *137 People v. Sears, 74 Cal. Rptr. 872 , 450 P.2d 248 (Cal. 1969).

1970Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 (1969); People v. Risenhoover, 447 P.2d 925, 936 (Cal. 1968); In re Anderson, supra; People v. Sears, 450 P.2d 248 (Cal. 1969).

1970Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 (1969); People v. Risenhoover, 447 P.2d 925, 936 (Cal. 1968); In re Anderson, supra; People v. Sears, 450 P.2d 248 (Cal. 1969).

1951In the case of In re Myles, 64 Nev. 217 , 180 P.2d 99, 102 , we approved and quoted from Staley v. State Bar of California, 17 Cal.2d 119 , 109 P.2d 667 , as follows: “Where any dissatisfied applicant can show that he was denied passage of state bar examinations through fraud, imposition, or coercion, or that he was prevented from fair opportunity to take examinations, the Supreme Court will listen to his complaints, but inability to pass examinations which are successfully passed by other applicants will not be inquired into.” The petition before us for the most part amounts to an assertion t

1951In the case of In re Myles, 64 Nev. 217 , 180 P.2d 99, 102 , we approved and quoted from Staley v. State Bar of California, 17 Cal.2d 119 , 109 P.2d 667 , as follows: “Where any dissatisfied applicant can show that he was denied passage of state bar examinations through fraud, imposition, or coercion, or that he was prevented from fair opportunity to take examinations, the Supreme Court will listen to his complaints, but inability to pass examinations which are successfully passed by other applicants will not be inquired into.” The petition before us for the most part amounts to an assertion t

1951In the case of In re Myles, 64 Nev. 217 , 180 P.2d 99, 102 , we approved and quoted from Staley v. State Bar of California, 17 Cal.2d 119 , 109 P.2d 667 , as follows: “Where any dissatisfied applicant can show that he was denied passage of state bar examinations through fraud, imposition, or coercion, or that he was prevented from fair opportunity to take examinations, the Supreme Court will listen to his complaints, but inability to pass examinations which are successfully passed by other applicants will not be inquired into.” The petition before us for the most part amounts to an assertion t

1951In the case of In re Myles, 64 Nev. 217 , 180 P.2d 99, 102 , we approved and quoted from Staley v. State Bar of California, 17 Cal.2d 119 , 109 P.2d 667 , as follows: “Where any dissatisfied applicant can show that he was denied passage of state bar examinations through fraud, imposition, or coercion, or that he was prevented from fair opportunity to take examinations, the Supreme Court will listen to his complaints, but inability to pass examinations which are successfully passed by other applicants will not be inquired into.” The petition before us for the most part amounts to an assertion t

1947Walker v. Harber, 129 Mo. 271 , 31 S.W. 889 , it was held that: “Disbarment proceedings may be instituted by the attorney general, or by a member of the bar on his own motion, or a court may require of any member, as a duty, that he prosecute charges against a practicing attorney looking to disbarment.” See, also, State ex rel.

1947Walker v. Harber, 129 Mo. 271 , 31 S.W. 889 , it was held that: “Disbarment proceedings may be instituted by the attorney general, or by a member of the bar on his own motion, or a court may require of any member, as a duty, that he prosecute charges against a practicing attorney looking to disbarment.” See, also, State ex rel.

1947Lentz v. Fort, 178 Mo. 518 , 77 S.W. 741 .

1941In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 26 , 292 P. 291 ; Dignan v. State Bar, 58 Nev. 82 , 70 P. (2d) 774 .

1941In re Scott, 53 Nev. 24, 26 , 292 P. 291 ; Dignan v. State Bar, 58 Nev. 82 , 70 P. (2d) 774 .

1940The facts and the law both being subject to review and final decision by the supreme court, we do not consider that the petitioner was denied due process of law.” [ 53 Nev. 24 , *303 292 P. 295 .] Citing In re Petersen, supra; In re Edwards, 45 Idaho 676 , 266 P. 665 ; In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472 , 172 P. 1152 ; McVicar v. State Board of Law Examiners, D.

1940The facts and the law both being subject to review and final decision by the supreme court, we do not consider that the petitioner was denied due process of law.” [ 53 Nev. 24 , *303 292 P. 295 .] Citing In re Petersen, supra; In re Edwards, 45 Idaho 676 , 266 P. 665 ; In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472 , 172 P. 1152 ; McVicar v. State Board of Law Examiners, D.

1940The facts and the law both being subject to review and final decision by the supreme court, we do not consider that the petitioner was denied due process of law.” [ 53 Nev. 24 , *303 292 P. 295 .] Citing In re Petersen, supra; In re Edwards, 45 Idaho 676 , 266 P. 665 ; In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472 , 172 P. 1152 ; McVicar v. State Board of Law Examiners, D.