TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Disbarment of Elmer C. Turnquist

In Re Disbarment of Elmer C. Turnquist. [Fn1]

In re Disbarment of Elmer C. Turnquist, 287 N.W. 795 (Minn. 1939)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 13, 1939
Docket
No. 32,217.
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
287 N.W. 795206 Minn. 1041939 Minn. LEXIS 630

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

*105 Per Curiam.

The state board of law examiners filed a petition and accusation in this court having for its object the discipline of respondent, an attorney at law of this state. The petition and accusation, together with an order of this court, directed the respondent to plead or file his answer to the accusations made in the office of the clerk of this court within eight days after the service thereof upon him. Such service was made upon him on July 12, 1939. By the affidavit of one of the representatives of the state board of law examiners, duly filed herein, it is made to appear that the respondent is in default and has in no way appeared herein.

Under rule XXIY of this court, when the accused in such a proceeding as this defaults, we will enter an order on the assumption that he is guilty as charged. Here the accusation is that respondent on March 30, 1938, pleaded guilty to the crime of grand larceny in the first degree; that thereupon the district court of Ramsey county, this state, having plenary jurisdiction of the crime and of the person of the respondent, entered its judgment and determined him to be guilty of said crime and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment in a state penal institution of this state, the maximum not to exceed six years; that respondent is now serving said sentence.

While there is also a charge of another embezzlement, we deem it unimportant further to consider the same, as it is obvious from what has been said that disbarment must follow. 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 5697; In re Disbarment of Olson, 197 Minn. 409 , 267 N. W. 361 .

It is therefore considered and so ordered that judgment of disbarment be forthwith entered disbarring respondent from practicing law in this state.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1940: 11950: 11955: 11957: 11985: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Discipline of Kraemer361 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. 1985)
  2. In re Discipline of King45 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. 1950)
  3. In re Disbarment of Francis G. Van Wyck290 N.W. 227 (Minn. 1940)
  4. In re Application for Discipline of Benjamin Peter Constantine81 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1957)
  5. Welanko's Case112 A.2d 50 (N.H. 1955)

Most recent

  1. In re Discipline of Kraemer361 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. 1985)
  2. In re Application for Discipline of Benjamin Peter Constantine81 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1957)
  3. Welanko's Case112 A.2d 50 (N.H. 1955)
  4. In re Discipline of King45 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. 1950)
  5. In re Disbarment of Francis G. Van Wyck290 N.W. 227 (Minn. 1940)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Disbarment of Arthur E. Olson, 267 N.W. 361 (Minn. 1936) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list