Durham, P. v. Judge
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 28, 2017·No. Durham, P. v. Judge ---------- - No. 3 WM 2017·Published
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
Durham, P. v. Judge, (Pa. 2017).
Durham, P. v. Judge (Durham, P. v. Judge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Reid
642 A.2d 453 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)