State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell

Supreme Court of Florida

State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell

66 So. 2d 216, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1381

DecidedJuly 10, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 66 So. 2d 216 (State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell, 66 So. 2d 216, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1381 (Fla. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

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 pro■ceeded 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 de■sire, 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. ■

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

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 pro■ceeded 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 de■sire, 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. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 2d 216, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-florida-bar-v-murrell-fla-1953.