STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LEO SHEINER, APPELLEE
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 affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a motion to disbar an attorney. The State appealed, arguing that the attorney's refusal to answer questions about Communist Party membership before a Senate subcommittee warranted disbarment.
No, the attorney's refusal to answer the questions does not warrant disbarment.
“Under the law of the State as now established the State has not met its burden of proving its Motion to Disbar by a clear preponderance of the evidence.”
This quote from the trial judge's final judgment explains the basis for dismissing the disbarment motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida sought to disbar attorney Leo Sheiner based on his refusal to answer questions from a U.S. Senate subcommittee regarding his alle…
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 Subversive Organizations cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is taken by the State of Florida from a final judgment dismissing a motion to disbar the appellee Sheiner. In the final judgment appealed from the trial judge said: “Under the law of the State as now established the State has not met its burden of proving its Motion to Disbar by a clear preponderance of the evidence.”
The sole question presented by the State on this appeal is:
“Was the refusal of Leo Sheiner, appellee, to answer certain questions propounded to him by a Sub-committee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate on March 18, 1954, in New Orleans, Louisiana, regarding his membership in the Communist Party, and in other alleged subversive organizations, so fraudulent, unethical and unprofessional as to warrant his disbarment.”
This question was answered adverse to the State’s contention in Sheiner v. State, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 657, and in the case of Petition for Revision of, or Amendment to, Integration Rule of Florida Bar, Fla.1956, 103 So.2d 873.
Accordingly the judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sheiner v. State, 82 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1955)
- Petition for Revision, 103 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1956)