In Re Disbarment of Isserman

Supreme Court

In Re Disbarment of Isserman

348 U.S. 1, 75 S. Ct. 6, 99 L. Ed. 2d 3, 99 L. Ed. 3, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 1630

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 14, 1954

Docket5 M

StatusPublished

Cited by39 cases

This text of 348 U.S. 1 (In Re Disbarment of Isserman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Disbarment of Isserman, 348 U.S. 1, 75 S. Ct. 6, 99 L. Ed. 2d 3, 99 L. Ed. 3, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 1630 (1954).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *2 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.

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

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 *2 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 U.S. 1, 75 S. Ct. 6, 99 L. Ed. 2d 3, 99 L. Ed. 3, 1954 U.S. LEXIS 1630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disbarment-of-isserman-scotus-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack