Schimelfenig v. Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Schimelfenig v. Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners

989 A.2d 1276, 605 Pa. 379, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 380

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

Docket12 EAP 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 989 A.2d 1276 (Schimelfenig v. Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners) 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

Schimelfenig v. Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners, 989 A.2d 1276, 605 Pa. 379, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 380 (Pa. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the Joint Application for Permission to File Post-Submis *380 sion Communication, we will dismiss the appeal. The Joint Application seeks leave to file a post-submission communication in the nature of an application to dismiss the first question presented on appeal on mootness grounds, given that a new reciprocal arrangement with the state of Oregon, concerning admission to the bar, effective January 1, 2010, has opened the door to petitioner’s admission to the Pennsylvania bar under the existing Rules. In light of this material change in circumstances, there is no need to pass upon either question on appeal and, in the interest of judicial economy, there is no need to file the requested post-submission communication. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the Joint Application is DENIED as MOOT.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the Joint Application for Permission to File Post-Submis *380 sion Communication, we will dismiss the appeal. The Joint Application seeks leave to file a post-submission communication in the nature of an application to dismiss the first question presented on appeal on mootness grounds, given that a new reciprocal arrangement with the state of Oregon, concerning admission to the bar, effective January 1, 2010, has opened the door to petitioner’s admission to the Pennsylvania bar under the existing Rules. In light of this material change in circumstances, there is no need to pass upon either question on appeal and, in the interest of judicial economy, there is no need to file the requested post-submission communication. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the Joint Application is DENIED as MOOT.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

989 A.2d 1276, 605 Pa. 379, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schimelfenig-v-pennsylvania-board-of-law-examiners-pa-2010.