In Re Berkhimer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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. ““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.””

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

2. “Any suggestion, however that this may derogate Respondent’s right to due process does not hold for, as the Supreme Court held in In the Matter of Glancey, 518 Pa. 276 , 542 A.2d 1350 (1988) and in In the Matter of Cunningham, 517 Pa. 417 , 538 A.2d 473 (1988), and as we held recently in In re Harrington, 877 A.2d 570 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2005), the Board’s focus on one rule and this Court’s finding violation of another is not prejudicial because the underlying conduct is the same and the Respondent has been advised of what that was from the beginning of these proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Davis

3. “Respondent routinely, regularly, frequently, often, used crude, coarse, vulgar, offensive and improper language, including frequent use of the F-word, in conversing with his female staff and others in the course of an ordinary day at the office. (Finding of Fact No. 25).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Singletary