Legal Opinion
Widoff v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided October 2, 1980No. 881 C.D. 1979PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge Blatt,
The petitioner, the Office of Consumer Advocate, seeks a declaratory judgment that Disciplinary Rule 7-107(H) of the Pennsylvania Code of Professional Responsibility is unconstitutionally infirm as unduly vague and overbroad.
The Office of Consumer Advocate was legislatively established in 1976 as an arm of the Department of Justice to represent consumers of public utility services in proceedings before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) and before any other agency or court in regard to any matter which involves regulation by the Commission. Article…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Procunier v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sheppard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re HindsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- South Whitehall Township v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. VisserSupreme Court of Iowa · 2001
- In Re HindsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982