green
Positive treatment
Issue: Braun standardPA ↗
Issue: lengthy analysisPA ↗
Issue: careful analysisPA ↗
Under Fire
Quoted verbatim 1×
64.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Quigley
(2017)
“Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1238 (2012).”
Dissent
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Quigley
(2017)
“Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1238 (2012).”
Dissent
In Re Angeles Roca First Judicial District Philadelphia County
(2017)
“Nevertheless, despite the fact-intensive nature of the endeavor, we strive for consistency so that similar misconduct is not punished in radically different ways,” Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1238 (2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added).”
Concurrence
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pozonsky
(2018)
“See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1238-39 (2012) (holding that “the primary function of the attorney disciplinary system is not punitive in nature, but is to determine the fitness of an attorney to continue the practice of law and maintain the integrity of the legal system[;]” the objective is to protect the public and the courts from attorneys who…”
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In the Matter of: Anthony C. Cappuccio
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
we reiterate that each matter must be examined individually based on the totality of facts surrounding the convictions. there obviously are circumstances of disbarment which involve misconduct worse than that committed by cappuccio.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pozonsky
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Significantly, the Board noted that, in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1240 (2012), discussed at greater length infra, our Court emphasized that an. attorney’s status as a public official may properly be regarded as aggravating any misconduct he or she engages in while holding that position.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Angeles Roca First Judicial District Philadelphia County
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Nevertheless, despite the fact-intensive nature of the endeavor, we strive for consistency so that similar misconduct is not punished in radically different ways,” Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1238 (2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Angeles Roca, Judge
Nevertheless, despite the fact-intensive nature of the endeavor, we strive for consistency so that similar misconduct is not punished in radically different ways.” Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cappuccio, 48 A.3d 1231, 1238 (Pa. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Quigley
(2×)
ODC v. Preski, 134 A.3d 1027, 1031 (Pa. 2016) (citations and some quotation marks omitted). “[T]he primary function of the attorney disciplinary system is not punitive in nature but is to determine the fitness of an attorney to continue the practice of law and maintain the integrity of the legal system.” ODC v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1238-39 (2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Quigley
(2×)
ODC v. Preski, 134 A.3d 1027, 1031 (Pa. 2016) (citations and some quotation marks omitted). “[T]he primary function of the attorney disciplinary system is not punitive in nature but is to determine the fitness of an attorney to continue the practice of law and maintain the integrity of the legal system.” ODC v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1238-39 (2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Preski
(2×)
ODC v. Cappuccio, 616 Pa. 439 , 48 A.3d 1231, 1236 (2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Kline
See Disciplinary Counsel v. Dann, 134 Ohio St. 3d 68, 74 , 979 N.E.2d 1263 (2012) (By violating ethical rules in filing false financial disclosure forms and soliciting improper compensation, Ohio Attorney General caused significant harm not only to his office but also to “those government agencies, departments, and institutions that the attorney general advises and represents.”); see also In re Marinoff, 819 So. 2d 305, 312-13 (La. 2002) (Adverse publicity from assistant city attorney’s professional misconduct in making false statements regarding automobile accident harmed tire public’…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sidney MARTIN
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS John E. Wetzel
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS John E. Wetzel
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1)
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2012, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.