In Re Harrington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That, pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. no. 503, the attached opinion with findings of fact and conclusions of law be and it is hereby filed, and shall be served on the Judicial Conduct Board and upon the respondent, “That, either party may file written objections to the court’s conclusions of law within 10 days of this order. Said objections shall include the basis therefor and shall be served on the opposing party, “That, in the event that such objections are filed, the court shall determine whether to entertain oral argument upon the objections, and issue an order setting a date for such oral argument, and “That, in the event objections are not filed, within the time set forth above, the findings of fact and conclusions of law shall become final, and this court will conduct a hearing on the issue of sanctions on July 18, 2007 at 1 p.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom, 5th Floor, Main Capitol Building, Flarrisburg, Pennsylvania. “That, the Judicial Conduct Board and the respondent shall each file on or before July 11, 2007 a list of such witnesses as either party may intend to present for testimony at that hearing, and shall serve a copy of said list upon the other party.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Berkhimer · 2 Pa. D. & C.5th 129 - In Re Hamilton

2. “"(b) Justices and judges shall not engage in any activity prohibited by law and shall not violate any canon of legal or judicial ethics prescribed by the Supreme Court. Justices of the peace shall be governed by roles or canons which shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court.” It is obvious that in this section of the Constitution "justices and judges” are treated separately from "justices of the peace” (now "magisterial district judges”) and the section simply does not prohibit magisterial district judges from engaging in “activity prohibited by law.” In In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005) we said: "It might reasonably be said that if justices of the Supreme Court and judges of our courts of common pleas and of our appellate courts are forbidden from engaging in activity prohibited by law, then district justices certainly should be. That may well be, but no massaging of the rules of statutory construction can rehabilitate Count 1 [charging a violation of Section 17(b)] because the plain language of § 17(b) precludes it." Id. at 574.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Murphy · In Re Carney

3. “A. Magisterial district judges shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Magisterial district judges shall not allow their family, social or other relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment. They shall not lend the prestige of their office to advance the private interest of others, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Carney · In re Nocella