Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 5/1/2007

In re L.M.

Citations

923 A.2d 505
2007 Pa. Super. 120
2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 821

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the “strict application of the bright line rule in [Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1990),] necessitates strict interpretation of the rules regarding notice of Rule 1925(b
holding that a parent's love of her child, alone, does not preclude a termination
holding that a parent’s love of her child, alone, does not preclude a termination
holding that the “strict application of the bright line rule in [Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1990),] necessitates strict interpretation of the rules regarding notice of Rule 1925(b) orders.”
stating that the analysis under section 2511(b) requires a \determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests. . . .\
indicating that the appeal period begins to run on the date that Rule 236(b) notice of the order has been given

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Colville, Gantman, McCaffery

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

87 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named In re L.M.

64 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.