Manson v. Schulman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Manson v. Schulman

133 A.3d 290, 635 Pa. 192, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 391, 2016 WL 868857

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 7, 2016

DocketNo. 6 EM 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.3d 290 (Manson v. Schulman) 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.

Bluebook

Manson v. Schulman, 133 A.3d 290, 635 Pa. 192, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 391, 2016 WL 868857 (Pa. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71, 10 A.3d 282, 293 (2010) (explaining that a pro se filing presented by an appellant represented by counsel is a “legal nullity").

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of record and to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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