In re Ferguson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Ferguson

789 A.2d 196

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

DocketNo. 166 DB 2000 (No. 31 RST 2001)

StatusPublished

This text of 789 A.2d 196 (In re Ferguson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Ferguson, 789 A.2d 196 (Pa. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM INACTIVE STATUS

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2001, a Rule having been issued upon John Dickson Ferguson on September 24, 2001, to show cause why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered and, upon consideration of the responses filed, the Rule is made absolute and the Petition for Reinstatement is hereby denied. Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the investigation [197]*197and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

Justice ZAPPALA dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM INACTIVE STATUS

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2001, a Rule having been issued upon John Dickson Ferguson on September 24, 2001, to show cause why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered and, upon consideration of the responses filed, the Rule is made absolute and the Petition for Reinstatement is hereby denied. Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the investigation [197]*197and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

Justice ZAPPALA dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 A.2d 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ferguson-pa-2001.