In Re: J.H., of: J.E.O.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In Re: J.H., of: J.E.O.

117 A.3d 292, 632 Pa. 110, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 1320

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 17, 2015

Docket78 WAL 2015 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.3d 292 (In Re: J.H., of: J.E.O.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: J.H., of: J.E.O., 117 A.3d 292, 632 Pa. 110, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 1320 (Pa. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*111 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Does the Superior Court’s ruling that Petitioner’s failure to challenge the involuntary commitment Order within thirty days of it’s [sic] entry was fatal to his petition for Expungement conflict with this Honorable Court’s holding in Wolfe v. Beal, 477 Pa. 477, 384 A.2d 1187 (1978) and other holdings of the Superior Court?

(2) Does the Superior Court’s holding affirming the procedure employed by the lower Court which had conducted the review of the tape recording of Petitioner’s 303 hearing, without a record being made and without Petitioner’s notice of the hearing or his presence at same, contrary to fundamental principles of due process, conflict with decisions of this Court and the Superior Court and depart so far from accepted judicial practices as to call for the exercise of this Honorable Court’s supervisory authority?

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

*111 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Does the Superior Court’s ruling that Petitioner’s failure to challenge the involuntary commitment Order within thirty days of it’s [sic] entry was fatal to his petition for Expungement conflict with this Honorable Court’s holding in Wolfe v. Beal, 477 Pa. 477, 384 A.2d 1187 (1978) and other holdings of the Superior Court?

(2) Does the Superior Court’s holding affirming the procedure employed by the lower Court which had conducted the review of the tape recording of Petitioner’s 303 hearing, without a record being made and without Petitioner’s notice of the hearing or his presence at same, contrary to fundamental principles of due process, conflict with decisions of this Court and the Superior Court and depart so far from accepted judicial practices as to call for the exercise of this Honorable Court’s supervisory authority?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.3d 292, 632 Pa. 110, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jh-of-jeo-pa-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack