TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Putney v. Haskins

Putney v. Haskins, 414 Mich. 1111 (1982)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 22, 1982
Docket
No. 63769
Citations
414 Mich. 11111982 Mich. LEXIS 736
Cited by 10

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Reconsideration denied April 26, 1983.

December 6,1982

Proposed Amendment to GCR 1963, 972. On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering whether to amend GCR 1963, 972. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford any interested person the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal, the text of which is as follows:

(The present language is to be repealed and replaced by the following language except as otherwise indicated below:)

Rule 972. Eligibility for Reinstatement.

.1 (Unchanged.)

*1112 .2 Revocation or Suspension for More Than 120 Days. An attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked or suspended for more than 120 days is not eligible for reinstatement until he has petitioned for reinstatement under GCR 1963, 973 and has established by clear and convincing evidence that:

(1)-(7) (Unchanged.)

(8) he is in compliance with the requirements of subrule 972.3, if applicable; and

(9) (Unchanged.)

.3 Reinstatement After Three Years. An attorney who, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, resigns, is disbarred, or is suspended for any period of time, and who does not practice law for 3 years or more, whether as the result of the period of discipline or voluntarily, must be recertified by the Board of Law Examiners before the attorney may be reinstated to the practice of law.

Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of subrule 972.2(8) is a complementary change to reflect the requirements of subrule 972.3. Subrule 972.3 requires an attorney who, as the result of discipline, has not practiced law for 3 years to be recertified by the Board of Law Examiners before being reinstated to the practice of law.

The staff comment is published only for the benefit of the bench and bar and is not an authoritative construction by the Court.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 11985: 21987: 31988: 11989: 21990: 119842026peak 1987 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Riley v. Richards404 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. 1987)
  2. Riley v. Richards376 N.W.2d 162 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
  3. Heyler v. Dixon408 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)
  4. Burke v. Angies, Inc373 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
  5. Newman v. Hoholik359 N.W.2d 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
  6. Gardner v. Stodgel437 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)

Most recent

  1. Davis v. Ptak463 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)
  2. Coughlin v. Dean435 N.W.2d 792 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. Gardner v. Stodgel437 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
  4. Zoll v. Brinkerhoff427 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
  5. Bodell v. Califf416 N.W.2d 341 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)
  6. Heyler v. Dixon408 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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