Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re an Inquiry into Allegations of Misconduct Against Juveniles Detained at & Committed at Cedar Knoll Institution

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 12, 1981No. 13855Published

1DissentFerren, Associate Judge

I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ conclusion that this case is moot. At the time Judge Kessler entered her order, the court still had jurisdiction over two of the four original parties, D.J.J. and K.A.V. Nothing of record since has changed that situation. Accordingly, this court is obliged to evaluate whether the juvenile court has authority to mandate changes at the Children’s Center on the ground that they were reasonably needed for the “supervision, care, and rehabilitation” of these two children. D.C.Code 1973, § 16-2320(c).

I have no doubt that the juvenile court has authority to…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. United States v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
  3. Kent v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. County of Los Angeles v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API