Durham, P. v. Judge
This text of Durham, P. v. Judge (Durham, P. v. Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
PAUL DURHAM, : No. 3 WM 2017 : Petitioner : : : v. : : : JUDGE DAVID CASHMAN, : : Respondent :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2017, the Application for Leave to File
Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. See
Commonwealth v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (providing that hybrid representation
is not permitted).
The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of record and to
strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Durham, P. v. Judge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-p-v-judge-pa-2017.