In re J.K.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating, “[t]his court has concluded that where the [timeliness] requirements are not fulfilled the commitment is unlawful]”
• “This court has concluded that where the procedural requirements [of the Act] are not fulfilled the commitment is unlawful.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Woodside
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-08-28· cited 24×
• In re Ryan
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-10-05· cited 20×
• In Re D.M.W
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-10-10· cited 13×
• In re J.S.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-10-14· cited 3×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• In re S.O.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-05-10· cited 23×