In re Disbarment of Abraham J. Isserman. isc
| Decision Date | 14 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,M,5 |
| Citation | 348 U.S. 1,75 S.Ct. 6,99 L.Ed. 3 |
| Parties | In re Disbarment of Abraham J. ISSERMAN. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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, 73 S.Ct. 676, 97 L.Ed. 1013. The order of disbarment is now before us on a petition for rehearing. Rule 8 of our present Rules, 28 U.S.C.A., 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 REED also calls attention to his dissent in Sacher v. Association of the Bar, 347 U.S. 388, 390, 74 S.Ct. 569, 571.
The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice CLARK did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Sawyer
...guilty of contempt of the court. The rule established by In re Isserman, 345 U.S. 286, 290, 73 S.Ct. 676, 97 L.Ed. 1013, and 348 U.S. 1, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 3, is that a lawyer is not subject to suspension or disbarment in any court merely because he has been convicted of Under Title 28, §......
-
Braverman, In re
.....' Judge Thomsen quoted from In re Isserman, 345 U.S. 286, 73 S.Ct. 676, 97 L.Ed. 1013 (1953), reversed on other grounds, 348 U.S. 1, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 3 (1954). There, Chief Justice Vinson 'It is said that respondent has already been punished enough for his contempt and that to disbar ......
-
In The Matter Of Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings v. The Honorable Michael J. Gablemanwis. Judicial Comm'n
...Court should issue. Id. at 290, 73 S.Ct. 676. ¶ 57 Less than one year later, on rehearing, the Supreme Court vacated the order entered in Isserman I. In re Isserman (Isserman II), 348 U.S. 1, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 3 (1954). The Court noted that on April 6, 1953, “an order was entered disbarr......
- Neff, In re