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

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 7, 2016
Docket6 EM 2016
StatusPublished

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.

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

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.