¶1 I concur. During the argument counsel for petitioner insisted that, although supersedeas may not issue to suspend the operation of a self-executing judgment, it should issue in this ease because a contempt proceeding might be instituted should he practice law during the pendency of this appeal. A contempt proceeding would be independent from, although of course an outgrowth of, the disbarment case. The possibility of such a *170 proceeding does not make the judgment of suspension any less self-executing, nor does it create a ground for the issuance of a supersedeas. (Wolf v. Gall, 174 Cal. 140 [162 Pac. 115].).
62 Cal. App. 168
216 P 386
In Re Graves
Decided May 9, 1923
California Court of Appeal · decided 1923-05-09
Relies on Wolf v. Gall
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1923-05-09
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 1969
1 district · 17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →