In Re Russell C.

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 adjudicatory hearing time limits in juvenile delinquency and child-in-need-of-services proceedings were jurisdictional because the time limits amounted to codification of a juvenile’s “speedy trial” and due process rights
• noting that “[t]he purposes and procedures delineated in RSA ch. 169-B” reflect “the desire to divorce juvenile proceedings from the criminal process whenever possible”
• concluding that mandatory time limits on juvenile adjudicatory hearings under RSA chapters 169-B and 169-D are a “legislative pronouncement of a child’s right to the expeditious resolution of his alleged delinquency or ‘need for services’ rooted in his right to due process”
• interpreting the juvenile delinquency statute to impose a mandatory time limit that favors the juvenile based on the legislature’s concern for procedural due process
• a statute should not be interpreted to lead to an absurd, unjust, or illogical result
• statute should not be interpreted to lead to an absurd, unjust, or illogical result

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).