THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
MEL LEVINE, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unauthorized Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have before us, in this unauthorized practice of law proceeding, a joint stipulation of the parties and an order entered by the referee approving the stipulation. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 15, Florida Constitution, and we approve the joint stipulation.
Respondent admitted to the petition’s allegations of activities constituting the unauthorized practice of law in Florida. He agreed to be permanently enjoined from engaging in those acts and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law in Florida unless and until he becomes duly authorized. In accordance with the terms of the joint stipulation, respondent is hereby permanently enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida. In the event he violates this injunction, he will be found in indirect criminal contempt of this Court.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $397.56 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue,
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1994)…the parties to exercise their peremptory challenges simultaneously in writing. He asked that each side be allowed to exercise its peremptories in turn and now argues that the method used by the trial court violated Ter Kuerst v. Miami Elevator Co., 486 So. 2d 547 (Fla.1986). In that case we quashed the district court’s approval of the simultaneous exercise of peremptory challenges that resulted in the excusal of only five prospective jurors when the two sides had six challenges between them. There is no clai…
-
Tedder v. Video Elecs., Inc., 491 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1986)…d, so as to allow the longest possible time for peremptory challenges.” Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46, 61, 34 So. 287, 291 (1903). See also King v. State, 125 Fla. 316, 169 So. 747, 748 (1936). In the recent case of Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevators Co., 486 So. 2d 547 (Fla.1986), we disapproved of a jury selection method which denied a party the right to exercise all of its peremptory challenges. We stated that “[t]he only fair scheme is to allow the parties to exercise their challenges singularly, alternately, a…
-
Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc., 710 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…reasonably interpreted as a statement of undisclosed existing defamatory fact. Id. at 446 (relying on Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), overruled on other grounds, sub nom. Ter Keurst v. Miami Elevator Co., 486 So. 2d 547 (Fla.1986)). Thus, in the instant ease, it was for the jury to decide whether the Magic’s statements were' defamatory. CROSS-APPEAL In its cross-appeal, the Magic raises an evidentiary issue which requires comment. The Magic contends that the tria…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence