Cameron v. Escofil

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Cameron v. Escofil

468 A.2d 513, 321 Pa. Super. 347, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4367

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 25, 1983

DocketNo. 313

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 468 A.2d 513 (Cameron v. Escofil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cameron v. Escofil, 468 A.2d 513, 321 Pa. Super. 347, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4367 (Pa. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting the appellant in forma pauperis status. Such an order is interlocutory, and not appealable as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 311. Moreover, appellant has not sought permission to appeal this order under Pa.R.A.P. 312. Finally, appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed more than thirty (30) days after the entry of the trial court’s order, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 903. As such this appeal must be quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting the appellant in forma pauperis status. Such an order is interlocutory, and not appealable as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 311. Moreover, appellant has not sought permission to appeal this order under Pa.R.A.P. 312. Finally, appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed more than thirty (30) days after the entry of the trial court’s order, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 903. As such this appeal must be quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 A.2d 513, 321 Pa. Super. 347, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-v-escofil-pasuperct-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack