Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County
This text of Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County (Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mason, K. v. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-k-v-ct-com-pl-phila-county-pa-2016.