In Re Toczydlowski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct: The «misconduct giving rise to the charges in this case involves three separate cases which were before the Respondent during her service as a municipal court judge. (b) The nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct: This consideration is similar to the first factor, and we note that the contacts made by former Judge Waters were not rejected or refused by the Respondent. Additionally, we found substantial evidence supporting our conclusion that these contacts gave the appearance of influencing her decisions in those cases. The Respondent took no steps to report the conduct in issue, as to Waters or herself, until after she was notified that she had been recorded on an authorized wiretap conducted by the FBI. (c) Whether the conduct occurred in or out of the courtroom: The phone conversations took place in the courthouse and the contacts were made using government equipment in judicial chambers. (d) Whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life: The actions which brought about these charges were related to the Respondent’s official responsibilities. (e) Whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred: The Respondent’s initial position in this case was that her conduct and inaction should not be considered violations of the canons or the constitution because she was able to rule upon these three cases ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Segal · In re Roca

2. ““(a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct.” The misconduct giving rise to the charges in this case is the only instance of misconduct by this Respondent either as a candidate for judicial office or during his service as a judge of the Traffic Court of Philadelphia, either on or off the bench. “(b) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct.” This consideration is very much akin to (a), and we note only that, as to the nature and frequency of the conduct, we are impressed by the sharp contrast this case bears to Deming . In Deming , among other things, Deming was found to have “made a myriad of improper and offensive comments and sexual innuendos to women, either in public or in his courtroom in the presence of others” (emphasis added); “(c) whether the conduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct: (g) the length of service on the bench; (h) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge; (i) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and (j) the extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Singletary