THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
WILL O. MURRELL, SR., RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court addressed the respondent's exceptions to the costs taxed in a disciplinary proceeding, reaffirming the respondent's choice to either pay the full costs for a one-year suspension or pay none for a two-year suspension.
The respondent's objections to the itemized statement of costs are overruled.
“This is not the usual adversary proceeding and we think it entirely unnecessary for us to determine whether the respondent should be relieved of some or any of the charges appearing in the statement.”
Explains the court's approach to the cost objections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a disciplinary proceeding, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the option to reduce the suspension 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 Taxation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On 30 July 1954 the Court filed an opinion in the above cause followed by a judgment that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years unless he paid within ninety days the cost of the proceedings, in which event the term of suspension would be reduced to one year. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell, 74 So. 2d 221. The Florida Bar filed a statement of the cost to which it had been put in this disciplinary proceeding and now the respondent takes exception to some of the items, citing us some of our decisions on what are and what are not proper costs to be taxed in a case.
This is not the usual adversary proceeding and we think it entirely unnecessary for us to determine whether the respondent should be relieved of some or any of the charges appearing in the statement. The effect of the order was to give him the opportunity of reducing his sentence of suspension to one year if he relieved The Florida Bar of the expense to which it had been put in presenting the charges against the respondent. He had the choice and he now has the choice of either paying the whole bill and being suspended for one year or paying none of it and being suspended for two years.
The objections of the respondent to the itemized statement of costs are overruled.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SE-BRING, HOBSON and MATHEWS, JJ., concur. TERRELL and DREW, JJ., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Fla. BAR v. Murrell, 74 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1954)
- State ex rel. Fla. BAR v. Murrell, 66 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1953)