In Re Harrington, 899 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Harrington, 899 A.2d 1120 (Pa. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Carney (pa, 2013-10-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In re Carney (2×)
Pa. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Harrington, 587 Pa. 407, 899 A.2d 1120 (2006) (per curiam order); In re Cicchetti, 560 Pa. 183 , 743 A.2d 431 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Merlo (2×)
Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith, supra, at 1239 ; see also, In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570, 576 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005), aff' d, 587 Pa. 407 , 899 A.2d 1120 (2006); In re McCarthy, 828 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003); In re Zoller, 792 A.2d 34, 38 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2002); In re Strock, 727 A.2d 653, 657 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1998); and In re Trkula, 699 A.2d at 7 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Lokuta (2×)
Ct. Jud. Disc. Pa · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith, supra, at 1239 ; see also, In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570, 576 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005), aff' d, 587 Pa. 407 , 899 A.2d 1120 (2006); In re McCarthy, 828 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003); In re Zoller, 792 A.2d 34, 38 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2001); In re Strock, 727 A.2d 653, 657 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1998); and In re Trkula, 699 A.2d at 7 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Moira C. HARRINGTON, Former Pittsburgh Magistrate Fifth Judicial District Allegheny County. Appeal of Moira C. Harrington
Appeal 21 WAP 2005.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jun 22, 2006.
899 A.2d 1120
Per Curiam.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

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.