Petition of Abbatangelo

Decision Date18 December 1964
Docket NumberNo. 4657,4657
Citation80 Nev. 584,397 P.2d 182
PartiesPetition of David D. ABBATANGELO for review of application for admission to the State Bar of Nevada, 1962.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

Bible, McDonald & Carano and Thomas R. C. Wilson II, Reno, for petitioner.

Robert R. Herz, Secretary, State Bar of Nevada, Howard L. Cunningham, Chairman, Board of Bar Examiners, Reno, for State Bar. McNAMEE, Justice.

Pursuant to Rule 55 of Supreme Court Rules petitioner filed a petition for review with this court to which the Board of Bar Examiners filed an answer.

It appears therefrom that petitioner, with the permission of said board, took the 1962 bar examination subject however to further character investigation by the board. He successfully passed the examination. Thereafter petitioner was interviewed by the board and upon receiving from the board a recommendation that he be denied admission this court on May 22, 1963 entered its order that petitioner's application for admission to the State Bar of Nevada be denied.

On September 9, 1963 this court entered its order that the board reconsider the application in light of new evidence on behalf of petitioner. After again interviewing petitioner the board submitted a supplemental report again recommending that petitioner's application for admission be denied. On December 27, 1963 this court entered its order denying said application and it is because of that order that the petition for review herein was filed.

That particular evidence relied upon by the board in recommending the denial of petitioner's application for admission to the state bar is as follows:

Evidence was introduced to show that in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he signed the name of his then wife, Victoria Abbatangelo, to a bank loan application and promissory note without disclosing to the bank the fact that her signature was not genuine but was written by petitioner; that soon thereafter he departed from Pennsylvania, where petitioner was a practicing attorney, and came to Nevada for a divorce, and that while in Nevada he failed to support his wife and children; that after obtaining a divorce in Nevada he married his present wife and failed to comply with the provisions in the divorce decree for child support and alimony.

The evidence tends to show that it was common practice for petitioner to sign his wife's name to legal documents and that he did so with her consent. This was particularly true with notes executed to Duquesne City Bank in Pennsylvania prior to the time of the application for the loan to the Pittsburgh bank. The Duquesne bank knew of petitioner's habit in this regard. The note given to the Pittsburgh bank was satisfied by petitioner's parents after he had left for Las Vegas.

Much of the testimony taken before the board has to do with this situation. The situation was first called to the attention of the board by Victoria Abbatangelo when she communicated with the board and accused the petitioner of forging her name to several obligations. Later however she made an affidavit which showed that her accusation of forgery was done for the sole purpose of aggravating petitioner; that she was well aware of all bank loans obtained by petitioner when signing her name; that she purchased items with the proceeds of these loans; and that petitioner was of high moral professional character.

One has but to read...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Alcaraz v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • May 24, 2021
  • Contreras-Armas v. Garrett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • February 28, 2023
    ... ... Cesar Contreras-Armas (“Petitioner” or ... “Contreras-Armas”) filed a counseled second ... amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C ... § 2254. (ECF No. 28 (“Petition”).) This ... matter is before this Court for ... ...
  • Arizona State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Clark
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1965
    ... ... Clark was represented by counsel. On October 16, 1959, the Board entered an order denying Dr. Clark's application. Dr. Clark then filed a Petition ... for Review in Maricopa County Superior Court, under the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1453B. After reviewing the entire record of the hearings ... See In re Abbatangelo's Petition, Nev., 397 P.2d 182 ...         'Unprofessional conduct' is defined in A.R.S. § 32-1401. The only part of that definition ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT