In re Martino

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Martino

668 A.2d 491

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1995

DocketNo. 646, Disciplinary Docket; No. 2—Supreme Court; No. 105 DB 88 Disciplinary Board

StatusPublished

This text of 668 A.2d 491 (In re Martino) 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 Martino, 668 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 1995, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated October 13, 1995, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted.

Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

MONTEMURO, J., participates by designation as a senior judge as provided by Pa.R.J.A No. 701(f).

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

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 1995, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated October 13, 1995, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted.

Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

MONTEMURO, J., participates by designation as a senior judge as provided by Pa.R.J.A No. 701(f).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 A.2d 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-martino-pa-1995.