Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re Larsen

Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania

Decided August 4, 1998No. 4 JD 94Published

1ConcurrenceByer, Judge

Although I have some doubt concerning the issue discussed in part II of this opinion, I concur in the result.

I

I cannot join the majority opinion to the extent it holds that the mootness doctrine “is applicable to the imposition of sanctions only.” Majority opinion at 46. By reasoning *49from that incorrect premise, the majority erroneously concludes that this case would not be moot even if the Board elects not to seek a sanction limiting Respondent’s ability to practice law.

A

Where, because of changed circumstances, a judicial remedy no longer will affect the status of the parties, the case must…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. DeFunis v. OdegaardSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. In re GreenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Judicial Inquiry & Review Board v. SnyderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Kuriger v. CramerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Matter of GlanceySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API