Legal Opinion
People v. Razatos
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided May 20, 1985No. 80SA249PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LOHR, Justice.
On September 16, 1983, we issued a rule to show cause why the respondent should not be held in contempt of court for failing to pay restitution and court costs previously ordered by this court and for representing that the court costs had been paid when they had not. We now conclude that we cannot impose contempt sanctions against the respondent on the record before us. Therefore, we discharge the rule.
I
On June 22, 1981, this court suspended respondent Peter S. Razatos from the practice of law for three years and ordered him to pay restitution of $2,500 to a former client and to…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Andresen v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Bloom v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- People v. ClarkColorado Court of Appeals · 2015
- In Re the Estate of ElliottSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
- Lynch v. LynchCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- People v. District Court of Arapahoe CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- In Re Marriage of McGinnisColorado Court of Appeals · 1989
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.