Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from K.R. v. Department of Public Welfare.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | K.R. v. Department of Public Welfare Anchor | green | “our 'scope of review in expunction proceedings is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of law were committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” | 7 |
| 2 | J. A. v. Department of Public Welfare | green | “the question of whether there are unique and compelling facts, which establish a non-negligent failure to timely appeal, is a legal conclusion to be drawn from the evidence and is reviewable on appeal.” | 3 |
| 3 | Beaver County Children & Youth Services v. Department of Public Welfare | green | “extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, a breakdown in the administrative processes, or non-negligent circumstances.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.