Towers v. Kanner
This text of 260 F.2d 605 (Towers v. Kanner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Towers seeks admission to the State Bar of Florida. Thus might this case be similar to those recently before the Supreme Court in Konigsberg and Schware1 but for at least one distinguishing factor. Towers has not been excluded from [606]*606bar admission by virtue of a moral character examination, nor been prevented from taking the written bar examination. He simply claims a constitutionally based right to be admitted to the Bar without an examination. This is an asserted right, need it be added, which the Florida Bar Examiners refuse to acknowledge.
Towers asserts the unconstitutionality of old Section 454.031(3) of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A.2 This provides that law students who enrolled in school on or before July 25, 1951, and graduated before May 18, 1954, (or, within three years uf an enrollment prior to July 25, 1951), shall be admitted to practice without taking a bar examination. For this purpose, time spent in the military service is excluded. Thus, the act is designed, in effect, for the benefit of Korean War veterans. Under this act some of Towers’ classmates were admitted to the Florida Bar without an examination while he was not.
. This act has now been repealed. In its place is a requirement that admission to the Florida Bar is subject to a satisfactory grade on the bar examination.3 Therefore, any objections that Towers might once have raised to this statute have now become moot.
With the statute out of the way he cannot show that the requirement of a bar examination now prescribed for all by the Supreme Court of Florida deprives him of any Federally guaranteed right.
Jurisdiction was based wholly on that. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. It was lacking. The Court was right in dismissing the cause, but the order is amended to show that it is for want of requisite jurisdiction and not, as set forth, for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. Modified, and as modified, affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
260 F.2d 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towers-v-kanner-ca5-1958.