In re Steger

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Steger

815 A.2d 557

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 12, 2002

DocketNo. 482 Disciplinary Docket No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 815 A.2d 557 (In re Steger) 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 Steger, 815 A.2d 557 (Pa. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 12th day of December, 2002, a Rule having been issued upon Eugene A. Steger, Jr., to show cause why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered, upon consideration of the responses filed, the Rule is discharged, the Petition for Reinstatement is hereby [558]*558granted and petitioner’s request for oral argument is dismissed as moot.

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

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 12th day of December, 2002, a Rule having been issued upon Eugene A. Steger, Jr., to show cause why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered, upon consideration of the responses filed, the Rule is discharged, the Petition for Reinstatement is hereby [558]*558granted and petitioner’s request for oral argument is dismissed as moot.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 A.2d 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-steger-pa-2002.