Fortune v. LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT
948 A.2d 805, 597 Pa. 707
Opinion
CERISSA R. FORTUNE, Respondent
v.
LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM J. MANCINO, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT; AMY STROBEL, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS OFFICE MANAGER OF THE LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT; AND CRYSTAL SCHILLING, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT, Petitioners.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 28th day of April 2008, the Motion for Leave to File Reply to Brief in Opposition is denied. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fortune v. LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT, 948 A.2d 805, 597 Pa. 707 (Pa. 2008).
948 A.2d 805 (Fortune v. LAWRENCE COUNTY ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Crozer Chester Medical Center v. Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Health Care Services Review Division
22 A.3d 189 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)