District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1975

Huggins v. United States

Huggins v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Decided May 2, 1975 · Fickling, Gallagher, Harris, Kelly, Kern, Nebeker, Reilly, Yeagley
337 A.2d 219 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Huggins v. United States

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, following affirmance of conviction, D.C.App., 333 A.2d 385, and it appearing that no judge of this Court has called for a vote thereon, it is

Ordered that appellant’s petition is denied.

Statement of Chief Judge REILLY and Associate Judges NEBEKER and YEAG-LEY.

In the Petition for Rehearing En Banc (p. 3), counsel accuses a police officer of perjury and a member of the bar of deceit. While the new Code of Professional Responsibility has not maintained the traditional notions of professional courtesy and forbearance, it surely cannot be read to condone scurrilous pleading. Such language is unbecoming and hardly necessary to a lawyer’s obligation “zealously” to represent his client. See Disciplinary Rule 7-101.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.