Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Leo SHEINER, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1959-05-29
Citations: 112 So. 2d 571
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Leo SHEINER, Appellee.
Judges: THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 112
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Leo SHEINER, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 29, 1959.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Ger-stein, State Atty., John C. Wynn, Asst. State Atty., George A. Brautigam, Asst, to State Atty., Miami, for appellant.
Louis M. Jepeway, Miami, and John M. Coe, Pensacola, for appellee.
J. Velma Keen, Tallahassee, and Erie B. Askew, St. Petersburg, for Florida Bar.
Tobias Simon and Howard Dixon, Miami, for American Civil Liberties Union of Greater Miami.
Peter Campbell Brown, Julius Applebaum, New York City, Egbert L. Haywood, Durham, Ray Murphy, New York City, James Cremins, Norfolk, Va., J. F. Schlafly, Jr., Alton, Ill., Henry J. TePaske, Orange City, Iowa, William F. Tompkins, Washington, D. C., Paul W. Updegraff, Norman, Old., and Louis C. Wyman, Concord, N. H., for Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives on Behalf of American Bar Association, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is taken by the State of Florida from a final judgment dismissing a motion to disbar the appellee Sheiner. In the final judgment appealed from the trial judge said: "Under the law of the State as now established the State has not met its burden of proving its Motion to Disbar by a clear preponderance of the evidence."
The sole question presented by the State on this appeal is:
"Was the refusal of Leo Sheiner, appellee, to answer certain questions propounded to him by a Sub-committee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate on March 18, 1954, in New Orleans, Louisiana, regarding his membership in the Communist Party, and in other alleged subversive organizations, so fraudulent, unethical and unprofessional as to warrant his disbarment."
This question was answered adverse to the State's contention in Sheiner v. State, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 657, and in the case of Petition for Revision of, or Amendment to, Integration Rule of Florida Bar, Fla.1956, 103 So.2d 873.
Accordingly the judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, C. J., dissents.