Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 9/21/1984
In Re Kerr
Citations
- 481 A.2d 1225
- 333 Pa. Super. 67
- 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 6054
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that violation of a statutory procedural requirement under the Juvenile Act did not implicate a post-confinement remedy where the procedure was directed at constraining the terms of custody, which had terminated
- holding that violation of a statutory procedural requirement under the Juvenile Act did not implicate a post-confinement remedy where the procedure was directed at constraining the terms of custody, which had terminated
- holding the purpose of a similar Pennsylvania Juvenile Code provision calling for adjudicatory hearing within ten days is to prevent lengthy pre-hearing confinement
- holding under Pennsylvania law that failure to schedule an adjudicatory hearing within the ten-day statutory limit does not result in loss of jurisdiction
- stating, “Absent an unequivocal expression from the Legislature that loss of jurisdiction follows from a violation of the statute, we are unwilling to so declare”
- juvenile held beyond period of time provided by statute can petition court for immediate release (which guardian ad litem did not, but Stepmother did), and if not released, can petition the Superior Court (which Stepmother did not)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brosky, Olszewski, Johnson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- DB v. State, Department of Family ServicesWyoming Supreme Court· 1993-10-04· cited 23×
- In the Interest of R.M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-02-21· cited 19×
- In Re: H.K., Appeal of: Greene County CYSSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-10-13· cited 16×
- In the Interest of J.P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-09-05· cited 15×
- In the Interest of: M.Y.C., Appeal of: Y.L.C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-03-13· cited 3×
- In Re RMSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-02-21
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.