# In Re Braig

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 29, 1991 · 527 Pa. 248

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764674

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Joseph P. BRAIG, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 29, 1991
- **Citations:** 527 Pa. 248; 590 A.2d 284; 1991 Pa. LEXIS 99
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, McDermott
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9764674

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that, under the Shaver rule, bribery is only infamous if its purpose is to obstruct justice

## Opinion text

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree that Judge Braig’s plea of guilty to mail fraud does not constitute a conviction of misbehavior in office to trigger automatic forfeiture of office under Article V, § 18(Z) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. I therefore join the majority opinion and write separately only to emphasize that, as the majority notes, Judge Braig’s conduct would justify discipline under section 17. That section explicitly prohibits a judge from “engaging] in any activity prohibited by law,” § 17(b), and is a basis for the recommendation of discipline under § 18(d). Accordingly, it would seem that the Board is duty-bound to proceed further in this matter under that section.
CAPPY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764674. Public record. Not legal advice.