Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
IN RE DISBARMENT OF ISSERMAN, 1954 — 348 U.S. 1 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
IN RE DISBARMENT OF ISSERMAN
348 U.S. 199 L. Ed. 2d 3·Supreme Court of the United States·1954
Mr. Justice Burton, with whom Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton join, dissents for the reasons stated in the opinion announced by Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, April 6, 1953, in In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286. · Mr. Justice Reed also calls attention to his dissent in Sacher v. Association of the Bar, 347 U. S. 388, 390. · The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
IN RE DISBARMENT OF ISSERMAN.
No. 5,
Misc.,
October Term, 1952.
Decided October 14, 1954.
Leonard, B. Boudin for Isserman, respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
April 6, 1953, an order was entered disbarring Isserman from the practice of law in this Court pursuant to Rule 2, par. 5, of this Court’s Rules then in effect. See In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286. The order of disbarment is now before us on a petition for rehearing. Rule 8 of our present Rules provides that “no order of disbarment will be entered except with the concurrence of a majority of the justices participating.” The petition for rehearing is granted. A majority of the Justices participating do not find ground for disbarment of Isserman. Accordingly, the former order of disbarment is set aside and the rule against Isserman to show cause is discharged.
Mr. Justice Burton, with whom Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton join, dissents for the reasons stated in the opinion announced by Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, April 6, 1953, in In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286.
Mr. Justice Reed also calls attention to his dissent in Sacher v. Association of the Bar, 347 U. S. 388, 390.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.