STATE EX REL. FLORIDA BAR
v.
MURRELL; STATE EX REL. FLORIDA BAR V. EVANS
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.
Florida Supreme Court disciplinary proceeding against attorneys Murrell and Evans under the Florida Bar's Integration Rule. The Court overruled second motions to quash and dismiss, finding them untimely but allowing the constitutional issues to be raised at final hearing.
The second motions to quash are overruled as untimely, but without prejudice to raising the issues at final hearing. The Court determined that orderly procedure requires denial of the motions at this stage, though the constitutional or procedural points raised may be preserved for consideration at final hearing.
“orderly procedure requires that they be overruled but without prejudice to raise the point on final hearing if respondents so desire”
Establishes the Court's standard for denying untimely motions while preserving issues for later consideration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDisciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondents Murrell and Evans based on affidavits allegedly obtained by casualty companies. Motions to…
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 Orderly Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a disciplinary proceeding against respondents as authorized by Section 1, Article XI, Integration Rule of the Florida Bar. A motion to quash and for summary judgment was overruled and the cause proceeded to the appointment and taking of testimony by the Referee. We are now confronted with a second motion to quash and dismiss on the part of both respondents. It appears that the latter motion in the Murrell case was filed after the evidence was taken by the Referee, but before his report to the Board of Governors was submitted to them. None of the evidence in "the Evans case has been taken.
The second motions to quash are different from the first motions to quash only in one aspect and that has reference to the activities of certain casualty companies in securing the affidavits on which the disciplinary proceedings were predicated. The Court has reached the conclusion that the present motions to quash are ill timed and 'that orderly procedure requires that they be -overruled but without prejudice to raise the point on final hearing if respondents so desire, it appearing that the point has not before been presented or ruled on.
It is accordingly, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the present motion to quash as to each respondent, be overruled but without prejudice to raise the point on final hearing if they may be so advised.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., TERRELL, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., and PARKS and HOLT, Associate Justices, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. The Fla. BAR v. Will O. Murrell, Sr., 76 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1954)