Legal Opinion

In Re Flint

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided October 3, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJeffords, J.

This is a presentment charging the respondent with contempt of this Court for having engaged in the unlawful practice of the law. The case has been here once before on demurrer of respondent to the presentment. The demurrer was overruled. See In re Flint, 110 Vt. 38, 1 Atl. (2d) 718. The case was then sent to a commissioner to find and report the facts, and it is now before us on his report.

The facts constituting such unlawful practice as alleged in the presentment are fully set forth in the former opinion and we need not repeat them here. It is sufficient to say that the respondent is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re DuncanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
  2. People v. RingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. In Re RipleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1937
  4. In Re FlintSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dressel v. AmeribankMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. In Re PiliniSupreme Court of Vermont · 1961
  3. In re Serendipity MoralesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API