In re A.H.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re A.H.

459 A.2d 1045, 1983 D.C. App. LEXIS 361

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 1983

DocketNo. 83-259

StatusPublished

This text of 459 A.2d 1045 (In re A.H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re A.H., 459 A.2d 1045, 1983 D.C. App. LEXIS 361 (D.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, taken pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-2328 (1981), came on for consideration on the pleadings of the respective parties and was argued by counsel. The appeal is from an order releasing the child into the custody of a parent plus a condition, imposed to protect the child’s best interests, that he stay away from the Islamic Center at 2500 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. (where he was arrested in connection with recent incidents of violence). Appellant’s contention is that the stay-away order violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order on review be, and hereby is, affirmed. See Brown v. Fogel, 387 F.2d 692, 696 (4th Cir.1967).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, taken pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-2328 (1981), came on for consideration on the pleadings of the respective parties and was argued by counsel. The appeal is from an order releasing the child into the custody of a parent plus a condition, imposed to protect the child’s best interests, that he stay away from the Islamic Center at 2500 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. (where he was arrested in connection with recent incidents of violence). Appellant’s contention is that the stay-away order violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the order on review be, and hereby is, affirmed. See Brown v. Fogel, 387 F.2d 692, 696 (4th Cir.1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 A.2d 1045, 1983 D.C. App. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ah-dc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack