Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 3302. Additional restrictions.
A judge shall not engage in any activity prohibited by this subchapter or any other
provision of law and shall not violate any canon of ethics prescribed by general rule.
A magisterial district judge shall devote the time necessary for the prompt and proper
disposition of the business of that office, which shall be given priority over any
other occupation, business, profession, pursuit or activity. A magisterial district
judge shall not use or permit the use of the premises established for the disposition
of magisterial business for any other occupation, business, profession or gainful
pursuit. A magisterial district judge shall not hold any other elected or appointed
public office in this Commonwealth. A magisterial district judge and an appointive
judicial officer shall be governed by rules or canons prescribed by general rule.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; July 20, 1979, P.L.157, No.52, eff.
60 days; Nov. 30, 2004, P.L.1618, No.207, eff. 60 days)
2004 Amendment. See section 29 of Act 207 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating
to construction of law.
Notes of Decisions
Matter of Cunningham, 538 A.2d 473 (Pa. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The alleged violation of rule 1(c) is that the entire Board, rather than a two-member committee of the Board, initially investigated the charges against these judges.”
Matter of Glancey, 527 A.2d 997 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 2× “) The Board also charged the Respondents with violating 42 Pa.C.S. § 3302, which, in addition to barring judges from engaging in certain enumerated activities, also provides that a judge shall not violate any canon of ethics prescribed *207 by general rule.”
Matter of Glancey, 542 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1988).
“" or "Board"), [2] which, following a hearing, concluded that Respondent knowingly and willfully failed to answer Question 11 in violation of Article V, section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution; Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; *279 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 3302…”
Egan v. Mele, 634 A.2d 1074 (Pa. 1993).
“See 42 Pa.C.S. § 3302; Rule 3, Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices.”
In re the Glancey, 542 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1988).
“” or “Board”), 2 which, following a hearing, concluded that Respondent knowingly and willfully failed to answer Question 11 in violation of Article V, section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution; Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Con *279 duct; and 42 Pa.C.S. § 3302…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.