Legal Opinion

Hathaway v. Florida Bar

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 23, 1966No. 34843PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the practice of law following two years’ suspension and for such time thereafter until in accord with Rule 11.10 of Art. XI, Integration Rule, 31 F.S.A., he shall demonstrate to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and this Court that he is entitled to be reinstated in the practice upon making the showing required by said rule. See State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Hathaway, Fla., 145 So.2d 483. The referee appointed by the Bar in these proceedings after hearing recommended that reinstatement be denied. Review was requested here and the matter has been…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In re KeenanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. In Re: Petition of William M. HurtenbachSupreme Court of Florida · 1946
  3. In Re PineSupreme Court of Florida · 1949
  4. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. HathawaySupreme Court of Florida · 1962

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re BrownWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
  2. The Florida Bar v. RandolphSupreme Court of Florida · 1970
  3. Hathaway v. Florida BarSupreme Court of Florida · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API