Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 8/26/1994

In Re Love

Citations

646 A.2d 1233
435 Pa. Super. 555
1994 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2633

How courts have described this case

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

\[T]here is no merit to the argument the identification process was unduly suggestive because the photos did not match the victim's description of her assailant.\
“[T]here is no merit to the argument the identification process was unduly suggestive because the photos did not match the victim’s description of her assailant.”
Juvenile Court’s discretion in implementing a disposition is broad; it is flexible and court has considerable power to review and modify commitment, taking into account juvenile’s rehabilitative progress or lack theerof

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Olszewski, Tamilia, Hoffman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.