Legal Opinion
Schofield Discipline Case
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 12, 1949No. 221, Miscellaneous Docket 9PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Attorney General of the Commonwealth filed a petition praying that Lemuel B. Schofield, a member of the bar of this Court, be required to show cause why he should not be disciplined for professional misconduct while representing the defendant in the Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia, in the trial of indictments Nos. 517 and 589 October Sessions, 1948, charging violation of the Magistrates' Court Act of June 15, 1937, P. L. 1743, 42 PS Cum. Supp. 1101 et seq. A rule was granted. The respondent appeared and answered on the merits. As there was no dispute of material fact, the case was heard…
2Cases cited62 opinions
- United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Sparf v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Ex Parte WallSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Howat v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Dombrowski v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Slater v. Rimar, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Roviello v. RovielloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- American Dredging Co. v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. MinoffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.