# Eisenberg v. COM., DEPT. OF PUB. WEL.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 16, 1986 · 512 Pa. 181

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544408

## Case

- **Full name:** Irwin L. EISENBERG, D.O., Appellee, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 16, 1986
- **Citations:** 512 Pa. 181; 516 A.2d 333; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 880
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McDERMOTT
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544408

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a nolo contendere plea is designed “to protect a criminal defendant from use of the plea as an admission of the defendant’s guilt or liability in a civil proceeding”

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION
McDERMOTT, Justice.
The advantage of a plea of nolo contendere is that a defendant may contest his guilt to all others except the court before which he pleads. There he suffers conviction, a conviction like all others, to which all appropriate sanctions may be imposed. In the instant case had the regulation 1 provided that a conviction alone was ground for revocation, a conviction under the plea would be sufficient. The regulation however is “may” and not “shall”. Hence, I reluctantly agree that he is entitled to be heard.
. 55 Pa.Code § 1011.81(b)(3)-(4).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544408. Public record. Not legal advice.