Supreme Court of the United States, 1954

In re Disbarment of Isserman

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 14, 1954 · Burton, Reed, Minton, Vinson, Isserman, Clark

348 U.S. 1; 75 S. Ct. 6; 99 L. Ed. 2d 3; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 1630; 99 L. Ed. 3 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Leonard, B. Boudin for Isserman, respondent.

Cases that cite this one

27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harriet Bouslog Sawyer, a Member of the Territorial Bar of the Territory of Hawaii, 1 (9th Cir. 1958)
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harriet Bouslog Sawyer, a Member of the Territorial Bar of the Territory of Hawaii, No. 15109 (9th Cir. 1958)
Richard Gladstein v. Hon. J. Frank McLaughlin as Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (9th Cir. 1955)
Reinstatement of Cooke (Md. 2012)
Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Gableman (Wis. 2010)
Petition of Olkon (D. Minn. 1985)
Matter of Willcher (D.C. 1982)
State v. Russo (Kan. 1981)
In re the Petition for Reinstatement to Practice Law of Braverman (Md. 1974)
In re Isserman (N.J. 1961)
In re Disbarment of Crow (Supreme Court of the United States 1959)
In re Richardson (D.C. 1997)
In re Culpepper (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1991)
In re Ronald T. Mitchell, Esq. In re Stafford A. Hilaire, Esq (3d Cir. 1990)
In re the Petition for Reinstatement to the Bar of Loker (Md. 1979)
In re Raimondi and Dippel (Md. 1979)
In re the Petition for Reinstatement to the Bar of Raimondi (Md. 1979)
People v. Fiorini (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Charles O. Williams (Mich. 1972)
Biggers v. Tennessee (Supreme Court of the United States 1968)
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc., Emma Goldman Clinic, and Jill Meadows v. Kim Reynolds, ex rel. State of Iowa, and Iowa Board of Medicine (Iowa 2023)
People v. Jones (Colo. App. 2011)
Hermina v. Baltimore Life Insurance (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999)
State v. Plaskonka (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
In re Neff (Ohio Ct. App. 1969)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

April 6, 1953, an order was entered disbarring Isserman from the practice of law in this Court pursuant to Rule 2, par. 5, of this Court’s Rules then in effect. See In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286. The order of disbarment is now before us on a petition for rehearing. Rule 8 of our present Rules provides that “no order of disbarment will be entered except with the concurrence of a majority of the justices participating.” The petition for rehearing is granted. A majority of the Justices participating do not find ground for disbarment of Isserman. Accordingly, the former order of disbarment is set aside and the rule against Isserman to show cause is discharged.

Mr. Justice Burton, with whom Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton join, dissents for the reasons *2 stated in the opinion announced by Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, April 6, 1953, in In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286. Mr. Justice Reed also calls attention to his dissent in Sacher v. Association of the Bar, 347 U. S. 388, 390. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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