From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Durham v. Cashman

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Feb 28, 2017
No. 3 WM 2017 (Pa. Feb. 28, 2017)

Opinion

No. 3 WM 2017

02-28-2017

PAUL DURHAM, Petitioner v. JUDGE DAVID CASHMAN, Respondent


ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2017, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (providing that hybrid representation is not permitted).

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


Summaries of

Durham v. Cashman

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Feb 28, 2017
No. 3 WM 2017 (Pa. Feb. 28, 2017)
Case details for

Durham v. Cashman

Case Details

Full title:PAUL DURHAM, Petitioner v. JUDGE DAVID CASHMAN, Respondent

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 28, 2017

Citations

No. 3 WM 2017 (Pa. Feb. 28, 2017)