Court Opinion

ID: 9879345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:09:42.411818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:51.129943
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE DONOHUE, DISSENTING For the reasons set forth in my Dissenting Opinion in In re: Angeles Roca, 42 EAP 2016, — Pa. -, 173 A.3d 1176, I respectfully dissent. Although Judge Se-gal’s misconduct differed materially from that of Judge Roca, the Court of Judicial Discipline (“CJD”) imposed the same sanction (permanent removal from judicial office) while employing substantially identical language in its two written opinions and made no attempt to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis. As a result, in my view, the sanction imposed by the CJD removing Judge Segal was not lawful pursuant to Article V, Section 18(c)(2) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Thus, I would vacate the order imposing sanctions and remand for the preparation of an opinion in which the CJD adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis in imposing a sanction in this matter.