# In Re Cicchetti

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 13, 2000 · 560 Pa. 183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629625

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Richard D. CICCHETTI, Former Judge and President Judge Court of Common Pleas Fourteenth Judicial District Fayette County. Appeal of Judicial Conduct Board (At 0092 MDA97). Appeal of Richard D. Cicchetti (At 93MDA97)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 13, 2000
- **Citations:** 560 Pa. 183; 743 A.2d 431; 2000 Pa. LEXIS 91
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cappy
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by In re Carney, 621 Pa. 476 (2013).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629625

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no discovery violation when judicial officer did not explain how requested information would be significant or relevant
- acknowledging that a due process claim can be waived for failure to raise it in a timely fashion

## Opinion text

CAPPY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I join the majority opinion in affirming the decision of the Court of Judicial Discipline. I disagree, however, with the *209 decision of the majority to prospectively bar court-appointed employees from participation in judicial retention elections.
Retention elections are designed to insulate sitting jurists from being forced to engage in partisan politics. Barring court-appointed employees from involvement in retention election activities on the basis that such involvement creates the appearance of improper political activity undermines the perception that retention elections are non-political. As I strongly believe that greater strides should be taken to enhance the public belief that retention elections are not political, I am compelled to dissent from that portion of the majority opinion.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, I join in part and dissent in part to the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629625. Public record. Not legal advice.