IN RE DISBARMENT OF ISSERMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court set aside the prior order of disbarment and discharged the rule to show cause against Isserman.
An order disbarring Isserman from the practice of law was previously entered. Isserman petitioned for a rehearing of that order.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Court Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
April 6, 1953, an order was entered disbarring Isserman from the practice of law in this Court pursuant to Rule 2, par. 5, of this Court’s Rules then in effect. See In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286. The order of disbarment is now before us on a petition for rehearing. Rule 8 of our present Rules provides that “no order of disbarment will be entered except with the concurrence of a majority of the justices participating.” The petition for rehearing is granted. A majority of the Justices participating do not find ground for disbarment of Isserman. Accordingly, the former order of disbarment is set aside and the rule against Isserman to show cause is discharged.
Mr. Justice Burton, with whom Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton join, dissents for the reasons stated in the opinion announced by Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, April 6, 1953, in In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286.
Mr. Justice Reed also calls attention to his dissent in Sacher v. Association of the Bar, 347 U. S. 388, 390.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (570 total)
-
Chaney v. City OF Galveston, 368 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1966)…while the grain spout was being spotted in place. Accordingly, we would not be warranted in disturbing the district judge’s finding that there was no negligence on the part of any respondent.7 Affirmed. . McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954); United States v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326, 72 S.Ct. 690, 96 L.Ed. 978 (1952); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948); Smith v. M/V Gisna, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F. 2d…
-
Noritake Co., Inc. v. M/V Hellenic Champion, 627 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1980)…Hellenic was liable for damages to only 17 cartons. In appeals of admiralty cases, as in other appeals, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954); Marcona Corp. v. Oil Screw Shifty III, 615 F. 2d 206, 208 (5th Cir.1980); Tittle v. Aldacosta, 544 F. 2d 752, 754 (5th Cir.1977); Movible Offshore, Inc. v. M/V Wilkin A. Falgout, 471 F. 2d 268, 271-72 (5th Cir.1973). To prevai…
-
Garland Wayne Kelly and Allen Eugene Kelly, Sr. v. Smith, 485 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1973)…evidence of navigability, including testimony by a tugboat captain who regularly traveled that stretch, is sufficient to support the court’s finding, and it is not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.; McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20 (1954); Chaney v. City of Galveston, 368 F. 2d 774 (CA5, 1966). However, in this case admiralty jurisdiction does not arise from the bare facts that the Kellys’ injury was consummated on navigable waters while they were in a boat. Whil…
Previewing 3 of 570 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Disbarment of Isserman, 345 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1953)
- Sacher v. Ass'n of the Bar of the City of N.Y., 347 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1954)