Opinion

In Re District Justice Scott

  • 528 Pa. 206
  • 596 A.2d 150
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 23, 2003
Status
Published
Author
Flaherty
On the bench
Nix, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Larsen
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.7%

The opinion

*211 FLAHERTY, Justice,

concurring.

I concur in the result reached by the majority, namely removal of Respondent from judicial office, but write separately in the belief that Respondent’s convictions were for “misbehavior in office,” which, pursuant to Art. 5, § 18(l) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, requires automatic forfeiture of judicial office. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in In re Joseph P. Braig, 527 Pa. 248 , 590 A.2d 284 (1991), convictions such as the present ones, to wit, for hindering apprehension or prosecution and obstructing administration of law or other governmental function, should result in automatic forfeiture of judicial office.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.