THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
BYRON S. CAMP, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
The uncontested report of the referee is approved, and the respondent is suspended for three years, effective nunc pro tunc August 11, 1992, which was the date of this Court’s Order of Emergency Suspension. The respondent shall not be reinstated until he proves rehabilitation pursuant to rule 3-7.10 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We further approve the recommendation of the referee that paragraph three of this Court’s August 11, 1992, order be dissolved to the extent that it prohibits the respondent from receiving his last severance paycheck from the Bateman Graham Law Firm. Respondent is further directed to comply with all terms and conditions of the referee’s report.
Judgment for costs in the amount of $5,072.06 is hereby entered against the respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
KOGAN, Justice,
dissenting.
Under the facts of this case, I would disbar the respondent.
BARKETT, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Tillman v. State, 934 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2006)…Tillman, 807 So. 2d at 109. However, “it is not this Court’s function to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature as to the wisdom or policy of a particular statute.” State v. Rife, 789 So. 2d 288, 292 (Fla.2001); see also State v. Jett, 626 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla.1993) (“It is a settled rule of statutory construction that unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction, however wise it may seem to alter the plain language.”). Further, given the heightened potential for violent resistan…
-
Overstreet v. State, 629 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1993)…e where, as in this case, the language is clear and unambiguous. “It is a settled rule of statutory construction that unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction, however wise it may seem to alter the plain language.” State v. Jett, 626 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1993). If the legislature did not intend the results mandated by the statute’s plain language, then the appropriate remedy is for it to amend the statute. Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the decision of th…
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…he burden of proving inability to pay by clear and convincing evidence to a defendant who asserts such a claim. This burden-shifting element of section 948.06(5) is clear and unambiguous and does not require judicial construction. See State v. Jett, 626 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla.1993) (“It is a settled rule of statutory construction that unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction, however wise it may seem to alter the plain language.”). Absent any inconsistencies with the Florida or United States…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence