Henderson, M. v. CCP., Phl. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 31, 2016·No. 49 EM 2016·Published

Opinion

lN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVAN|A EASTERN D|STR|CT

l\/|ARK HENDERSON, : No. 49 E|\/| 2016

Petitioner

COURT OF COIV||\/|ON PLEAS PH|LADELPH|A COUNTY,

Respondent

AND NOW, this 31st day of |\/|ay, 2016, the App|ication for Leave to Fi|e Origina| Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are D|SM|SSED. See Commonwea/th v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (providing that hybrid representation is not permitted). The Prothonotary is D|RECTED to fon/vard the filings to counsel of record.

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

lN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVAN|A EASTERN D|STR|CT

l\/|ARK HENDERSON, : No. 49 E|\/| 2016

Petitioner

COURT OF COIV||\/|ON PLEAS PH|LADELPH|A COUNTY,

Respondent

AND NOW, this 31st day of |\/|ay, 2016, the App|ication for Leave to Fi|e Origina| Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are D|SM|SSED. See Commonwea/th v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (providing that hybrid representation is not permitted). The Prothonotary is D|RECTED to fon/vard the filings to counsel of record.

Henderson, M. v. CCP., Phl. Co., (Pa. 2016).

Pincite

Henderson, M. v. CCP., Phl. Co. (Henderson, M. v. CCP., Phl. Co.) — 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)