You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Calloway, E. v. Rudenstein, D.

Citation: 169 A.3d 558Docket: Calloway, E. v. Rudenstein, D. - No. 49 EM 2017

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; May 31, 2017; Pennsylvania; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Edmond Calloway's application for leave to file original process and his petition for a writ of mandamus and/or extraordinary relief have been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, as of May 31, 2017. The court referenced the precedent set in Commonwealth v. Ali, which states that hybrid representation is not permissible. Additionally, the Prothonotary is instructed to forward the filings to the counsel of record.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Application for Leave to File Original Process

Application: The court dismissed Edmond Calloway's application for leave to file original process.

Reasoning: Edmond Calloway's application for leave to file original process and his petition for a writ of mandamus and/or extraordinary relief have been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, as of May 31, 2017.

Procedural Handling by Prothonotary

Application: The Prothonotary is directed to forward the filings to the counsel of record, ensuring proper procedural handling of the documents.

Reasoning: Additionally, the Prothonotary is instructed to forward the filings to the counsel of record.

Prohibition of Hybrid Representation

Application: The court applied the precedent from Commonwealth v. Ali to deny hybrid representation, which was one of the reasons for dismissing Calloway's filings.

Reasoning: The court referenced the precedent set in Commonwealth v. Ali, which states that hybrid representation is not permissible.