From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

The Florida Bar v. Lovelace

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 9, 2006
926 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2006)

Summary

In S. v. Lovelace, 178 N.C. 769, it is said: "The charge requiring the jury to consider the interest of the defendant and other witnesses, but if satisfied they had told the truth they could give their evidence as much weight as the evidence of other witnesses, is in accordance with our precedents and not prejudicial to the prisoner."

Summary of this case from State v. Barnhill

Opinion

Case No. SC05-1158.

March 9, 2006.

Lower Tribunal No. 2005-10,016(20A).


The Court approves the uncontested referee's report and reprimands respondent.

Respondent shall pay restitution in the amount of $2,000.00 to Muriel Ryle within thirty (30) days of the date of this order under the terms and conditions set forth in the report and consent judgment.

Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Jerry Lee Lovelace in the amount of $447.16, for which sum let execution issue.

Not final until time expires to file motion for rehearing, and if filed, determined.


Summaries of

The Florida Bar v. Lovelace

Supreme Court of Florida
Mar 9, 2006
926 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2006)

In S. v. Lovelace, 178 N.C. 769, it is said: "The charge requiring the jury to consider the interest of the defendant and other witnesses, but if satisfied they had told the truth they could give their evidence as much weight as the evidence of other witnesses, is in accordance with our precedents and not prejudicial to the prisoner."

Summary of this case from State v. Barnhill
Case details for

The Florida Bar v. Lovelace

Case Details

Full title:THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant(s) v. JERRY LEE LOVELACE, Respondent(s)

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Mar 9, 2006

Citations

926 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2006)

Citing Cases

State v. McCormac

Affirmed. Cited: S. v. Gadberry, 117 N.C. 826; S. v. Covington, ib., 861; S. v. Thomas, 118 N.C. 1118; S. v.…

State v. Barnhill

In S. v. Williams, 185 N.C. 666, the following was approved: "Exception 33: In this exception defendants…