In Re Harrington

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In Re Harrington

899 A.2d 1120, 587 Pa. 407, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1027

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 22, 2006

DocketAppeal 21 WAP 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 899 A.2d 1120 (In Re Harrington) 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 Harrington, 899 A.2d 1120, 587 Pa. 407, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1027 (Pa. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2006, the Order of the Court of Judicial Discipline is AFFIRMED on the basis of the finding of a violation of Pa. Const, art. V, § 18(d)(1) (authoriz *408 ing suspension, removal from office, or other discipline for, inter alia, “conduct which ... brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting in a judicial capacity or is prohibited by law.”). However, the court’s conclusion that Appellant’s conduct violated Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges was improper, because that conduct did not implicate the judicial decision-making process. See In re Cicchetti, 560 Pa. 183, 743 A.2d 431 (2000). Accordingly, that finding, which was not essential to the decision or order below, is disapproved.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2006, the Order of the Court of Judicial Discipline is AFFIRMED on the basis of the finding of a violation of Pa. Const, art. V, § 18(d)(1) (authoriz *408 ing suspension, removal from office, or other discipline for, inter alia, “conduct which ... brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting in a judicial capacity or is prohibited by law.”). However, the court’s conclusion that Appellant’s conduct violated Rule 2A of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges was improper, because that conduct did not implicate the judicial decision-making process. See In re Cicchetti, 560 Pa. 183, 743 A.2d 431 (2000). Accordingly, that finding, which was not essential to the decision or order below, is disapproved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 A.2d 1120, 587 Pa. 407, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harrington-pa-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack