STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
GEORGE B. EVERETT, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a disbarment judgment by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar against George B. Everett. The court found no error in the Board's judgment and approved the disbarment, also assessing costs against the respondent.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Board of Governors was not erroneous, unlawful, or unjustified. The court approved the disbarment and the assessment of costs.
“We have carefully reviewed the record in this cause and find that the respondent has failed to establish that the judgment is erroneous, unlawful, or unjustified.”
This quote establishes the court's basis for affirming the lower body's decision after reviewing the record.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge B. Everett petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for review of a judgment by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. The Board had disbarred …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
The respondent, George B. Everett, petitioned this court for appellate review of the judgment of the Board of Governors. The Integration Rule, Article XI, subd. 5(e), 31 F.S.A.
By its judgment, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar disbarred the respondent and petitioned this court to assess actual costs in the amount of $671.58 against respondent.
We have carefully reviewed the record in this cause and find that the respondent has failed to establish that the judgment is erroneous, unlawful, or unjustified.
The judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar is approved, the name of the respondent, George B. Everett, is hereby stricken from the rolls of The Florida Bar, and costs of $671.58 are hereby assessed against the respondent, George B. Everett, for which let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
TPIOMAS, Acting C. J., HOBSON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., and' TAYLOR, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nunez v. Alford, 117 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…urt of Florida to file such a bill. Pursuant to this expression a second amended complaint with exhibits was filed, and a petition to the Supreme Court for permission to proceed was made. Permission to proceed was granted. Alford v. Nunez, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 425. At the time of oral argument before the bar of this court, counsel for the respective parties were interrogated whether this court should assume jurisdiction to entertain this appeal in view of the principle laid down in the case of Armenian Hotel…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. The Honorable Robert H. Anderson, 157 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…1.38, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, on July 1, 1962,2 it was necessary to secure the permission of the appellate court whose judgment was sought to be reviewed before filing the bill in the nature of a bill of review. Alford v. Nunez, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 425. Compare Deauville Realty Co. v. Tobin, Fla.App.1960, 120 So,2d 198. The question then is whether the amendment of Rule 1.38 eliminates the long recognized rule that when a judgment has been appealed and reversed or affirmed, the subsequent judgment…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Ellis Rubin, 142 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1962)…uct prescribed by the Code of Ethics. Respondent’s testimony reflects his recognition of the error of his action in approving Rosenberg’s conduct. The judgment of the Board of Governors is supported by State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Everett, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 425. It should be said at the outset that the courts uniformly hold that disciplinary or disbarment proceedings are not for the purpose of punishment for any malfeasance or dereliction of duty but are solely for the purpose of purging the roll of legal…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence