Ginsburg v. Kovrak

139 A.2d 889, 392 Pa. 143, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 430
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 24, 1958
DocketAppeal, 278
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 139 A.2d 889 (Ginsburg v. Kovrak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ginsburg v. Kovrak, 139 A.2d 889, 392 Pa. 143, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 430 (Pa. 1958).

Opinions

Opinion

pee Curiam,

The Decree of the court below, couched substantially in the language of the Act of April 28, 1899, P.L. 117, as amended, 17 PS §1608 (Supp.), enjoins the appellant, in effect: (1) from practicing law in Philadelphia County; (2) from holding himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law in that county; (3) from advertising in that county that he practices law or is authorized to practice law in any [145]*145state, nation, country or land. This injunction applies only so long as the appellant fails to secure admission to practice in a court of record in Philadelphia County.

It is readily apparent that the injunction is intended to, and does, prohibit only the maintenance of an office and the practice of law in Philadelphia County (and, of course, anywheré else in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). It in no way affects the appellant’s right to engage in the practice of law in Washington, D. C. or to try cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or in any other federal court or jurisdiction where he may be entitled to practice.

' For this reason we conclude that the injunction infringes upon no federal rights guaranteed to the appellant by either the statutes or the Constitution of the United States and, accordingly, the decree is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Curtis Bok reported in 11 Pa. D. & C. 2d 615.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Marcone
855 A.2d 654 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Haymond v. Lundy
205 F. Supp. 2d 390 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2002)
In the Matter of Application of Jackman
761 A.2d 1103 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2000)
Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Harris-Smith
737 A.2d 567 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1999)
Kennedy v. Bar Ass'n of Montgomery County, Inc.
561 A.2d 200 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1989)
Matter of Frazier
594 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. Louisiana, 1984)
Estate of Drischler
25 Pa. D. & C.3d 191 (Allegheny County Orphans' Court, 1980)
Leis v. Flynt
439 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Matter of Perrello
386 N.E.2d 174 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1979)
Golden v. State Board of Law Examiners
452 F. Supp. 1082 (D. Maryland, 1978)
Kuang Hung Hu v. Morgan
405 F. Supp. 547 (E.D. North Carolina, 1975)
Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia
359 F. Supp. 549 (E.D. Virginia, 1973)
In re Russell
236 So. 2d 767 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1970)
McCarthy v. Panaccio
49 Pa. D. & C.2d 501 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1969)
Community Legal Services, Inc.
43 Pa. D. & C.2d 51 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1967)
State Ex Rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry
140 So. 2d 587 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1962)
In re Motion for Admission of Kovrak
194 F. Supp. 204 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1961)
Davis v. Wadsworth Construction Co.
27 F.R.D. 1 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 A.2d 889, 392 Pa. 143, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsburg-v-kovrak-pa-1958.