In re Prisock

4 Citing cases

  1. Daly v. the Mississippi Bar

    2010 B.R. 716 (Miss. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    We review petitions for reinstatement de novo. In re Prisock, 5 So.3d 319, 322 (Miss.2008) (quoting In Re Baldwin, 890 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss.2003)). On review, this Court sits as a trier of fact, and is not bound by substantial-evidence or manifest-error rules.

  2. Stanford v. Miss. Bar

    326 So. 3d 430 (Miss. 2021)

    ’ " Id. (second, third, and fourth alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Prisock , 5 So. 3d 319, 323 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2008) ). Today, however, Stanford has satisfied the amends-and-restitution requirement.

  3. Stanford v. Miss. Bar

    308 So. 3d 429 (Miss. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    2. [a]n act of repaying or compensating for loss, damage, or injury. 3. [a] return to or restoration of a former state or position’." In re Prisock , 5 So.3d 319, 323 (¶ 27) (Miss. 2008) (citation omitted). Although not a lot of caselaw exists on the specific issue, the Court appears to have taken a hardline approach to restitution.

  4. In re Shah for the Reinstatement to the Practice of Law

    5 So. 3d 352 (Miss. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    We also sit as trier of fact and therefore are not bound by substantial evidence or manifest error rules." In re Prisock, 5 So.3d 319, 322, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 287, *8 (Miss. June 5, 2008) (citations omitted). ANALYSIS