# In the Interest of LaRue

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 15, 1976 · 244 Pa. Super. 218

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701765

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Interest of James and John LaRUE, Minors. Appeal of Joanne LaRUE
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 15, 1976
- **Citations:** 244 Pa. Super. 218; 366 A.2d 1271; 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2203
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Price
- **Judges:** Spaeth, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth, Van Voort
- **Cited by:** 82 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701765

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- emphasizing the importance of disinterested testimony as an ingredient of clear and convincing evidence

## Opinion text

PRICE, Judge
(dissenting):
As in the case of In re: DeSavage, 241 Pa.Super. 174 , 360 A.2d 237 (1975), I would affirm the order of the lower court. As is noted in my dissent therein, we should not engage in word-play so that the judgment of an appellate court may be substituted for that of the low *255 er court. I recognize and admire the compassion and good-will of my colleagues in their efforts, nevertheless, I continue to believe that such efforts are leading to increasingly confusing and contradictory results in our courts and are absolutely unnecessary to the field of law to which they are addressed.
I would affirm on the opinion of the lower court (Tam-ilia, J.) with a single caveat. The lower court opinion refers to the order involved as an “interlocutory order”, and if that characterization is meant to imply that it may not be appealed, I could not accept that concept. The order continued the case for six months and reaffirmed the entrustment agreement. Since it continued the custody of the foster parents for that same period, it is a final order and appealable.
I would affirm the order of the lower court.
VAN der VOORT, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701765. Public record. Not legal advice.