Comm. v. Glossner, J. of: C.R. Rosamilia III

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 13, 2017·No. 105 MM 2017·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : No. 105 MM 2017 : :

v. :

: :

JEFFREY ALAN GLOSSNER :

: :

PETITION OF: C. ROCCO ROSAMILIA, : III, ESQUIRE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2017, the Application to Withdraw as

Counsel is DISMISSED. The attorney had not represented Petitioner in the Superior

Court action from which Petitioner has filed his pro se Petition for Allowance of Appeal.

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to determine whether the Petition for Allowance

of Appeal has been perfected and, if it has, to docket it for this Court’s consideration.

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

Comm. v. Glossner, J. of: C.R. Rosamilia III, (Pa. 2017).

Comm. v. Glossner, J. of: C.R. Rosamilia III (Comm. v. Glossner, J. of: C.R. Rosamilia III) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.