From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Board of Law Examiners v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 10, 1938
280 N.W. 5 (Minn. 1938)

Opinion

No. 29,849.

June 10, 1938.

Order by this court, upon complaint of the State Board of Law Examiners, citing Iver C. Nelson to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court for practicing law after being disbarred. Judgment entered sentencing defendant to imprisonment in county jail, with stay of execution of sentence during good behavior.

Thomas Tallakson, for State Board of Law Examiners; Charles J. Eisler, Ralph M. McCareins, John Derrick, Clifford N. Carlson, J.L. Krusemark, and Frank J. Collins, Of Counsel.

Iver C. Nelson, pro se.



Upon the complaint this court duly cited defendant to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this court for practicing law after disbarment on August 10, 1934. In re Disbarment of Nelson, 192 Minn. 313, 256 N.W. 186. Defendant duly appeared March 31, 1938, and, after hearing his excuses, it is found that the charges made in the complaint are substantially true and that defendant is guilty of contempt in practicing law notwithstanding the judgment of this court revoking his license so to practice. And, as punishment, defendant is sentenced to confinement in the Hennepin county jail for 30 days. Let judgment be entered accordingly.

In consideration for the age and state of health of defendant, execution of sentence is stayed during good behavior; meanwhile defendant is placed under the supervision of the State Board of Law Examiners.


Summaries of

State Board of Law Examiners v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 10, 1938
280 N.W. 5 (Minn. 1938)
Case details for

State Board of Law Examiners v. Nelson

Case Details

Full title:STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS v. IVER C. NELSON

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Jun 10, 1938

Citations

280 N.W. 5 (Minn. 1938)
280 N.W. 5

Citing Cases

Matter of Peterson

First, practice of law after disbarment constitutes a contempt of court. State Board of Law Examiners v.…