Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 7, 2016·No. 6 EM 2016·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

KASHYISM MANSON, : No. 6 EM 2016 :

Petitioner :

: :

v. :

: :

JUDGE SUSAN I. SCHULMAN, :

:

Respondent :

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, 10 A.3d 282, 293 (Pa. 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

Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County, (Pa. 2016).

Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County (Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Ali
10 A.3d 282 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)