In re Perrino

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Perrino

647 A.2d 211

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 24, 1994

DocketNo. 668, Disciplinary Docket; No. 2—Supreme Court; No. 3 DB 89 Disciplinary Board

StatusPublished

This text of 647 A.2d 211 (In re Perrino) 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 Perrino, 647 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 1994, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated July 18, 1994, 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.

ZAPPALA and MONTEMURO, JJ., did not participate in this matter.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 1994, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated July 18, 1994, 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.

ZAPPALA and MONTEMURO, JJ., did not participate in this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 A.2d 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-perrino-pa-1994.