Legal Opinion
In Re Hopmayer
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided May 27, 1993No. 89-SP-1425PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TERRY, Associate Judge:
This case is here for the second time. On the first occasion, this court concluded that respondent Hopmayer, who was convicted in New Jersey of the offense of “theft by failure to make required disposition of property received,” had committed a crime involving moral turpitude. In re Hopmayer, 602 A.2d 655, 657 (D.C.1992) (“Hopmayer I”). Although recognizing that the case arose under D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) (1989), which mandates disbarment upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, we remanded the case to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”)…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Matter of ColsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re McBrideDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Matter of KentDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- In Re ReidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In Re AbramsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GittensCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- In Re ApplerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- In Re SpiridonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Marinangeli v. LehmanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.