driving privilege in Pennsylvania

2020See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1602(a); see also Turk v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 983 A.2d 805 , 814-15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Department retains authority under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519 to require elderly licensee with alleged vision problems to pass a driving test in order for Department to determine licensee’s competency to drive a motor vehicle); Neimeister v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 916 A.2d 712, 713 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (same).

2009In addition, Licensee argues the two cases relied on by DOT, Neimeister v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 916 A.2d 712 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) and Montchal v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 794 A.2d 973 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002), are factually distinguishable and thus inapplicable here. 7 Unlike the licensees in those cases, Licensee points out she was not involved in a traffic accident or guilty of erratic driving.

2025See Berner v. Montour Twp., 120 A.3d 433 , 437 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (ruling that a party’s failure to sufficiently develop an issue in a brief constitutes waiver of the issue); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). 8 Section 1547(b)(1)(ii) provides that a licensee’s driving privilege will be suspended for refusing to submit to chemical testing for a period of 18 months where any of the following apply: 4 DOT presented the testimony on Pennsylvania State Trooper Thomas Butch in the instant matter.

2021Nelson v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 578 A.2d 586, 588 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). 3 that occurred prior to April 22, 2019, it possessed the ability to do so.

2020See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1602(a); see also Turk v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 983 A.2d 805 , 814-15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Department retains authority under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519 to require elderly licensee with alleged vision problems to pass a driving test in order for Department to determine licensee’s competency to drive a motor vehicle); Neimeister v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 916 A.2d 712, 713 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (same).

2018See Wert v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 821 A.2d 182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

2018As noted by an eminent authority on Pennsylvania constitutional law, by the time of that convention, gerrymandering was regarded as “one of the most flagrant evils and scandals of the time, involving notorious wrong to the people and open disgrace to republican institutions.” Thomas Raeburn White, Commentaries on the Constitution of Pennsylvania 61 (1907).

2018See Thoman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 965 A.2d 385 , 386 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). her operating privilege would be suspended for one year as a result of her refusal to submit to chemical testing at the time of her arrest.

2017Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Claypool, 618 A.2d 1231, 1232-33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). 4 what we called “limited extraordinary circumstances.” 134 A.3d at 534-35 .6 In Gingrich, we held that even where the Department was not responsible for the delay, a licensee could still have his or her license reinstated upon proof that: (1) the entity responsible for certifying a conviction to the Department failed to do so for an extraordinary extended period of time; (2) the licensee had no further Vehicle Code violations for a significant number of years before the conviction

2017More specifically, Licensee asserts the Supreme Court phrased the issue before it as “whether motorists lawfully arrested for drunk driving may be convicted of a crime or otherwise penalized for refusing to take a warrantless test measuring the alcohol in their bloodstream.” Birchfield, ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S.Ct. at 2172 (emphasis added).

2012Registration is conditioned upon a showing that exchanges have rules that are designed “to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, ... and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.” Thus, it becomes evident that the driving principle behind the regulatory scheme of self-regulation and, more specifically, national securities exchange rules concerning the disciplining of traders is “to insure fair dealing and to protect investors from harmful or unfair trading practices.” [A]ny exchange rule or practice in contra

2012Registration is conditioned upon a showing that exchanges have rules that are designed “to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, ... and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.” Thus, it becomes evident that the driving principle behind the regulatory scheme of self-regulation and, more specifically, national securities exchange rules concerning the disciplining of traders is “to insure fair dealing and to protect investors from harmful or unfair trading practices.” [A]ny exchange rule or practice in contra

2007The degree of scrutiny is determined by the type of interest affected by the statutory classification, and classifications relating to the driving privilege and the right to engage in a lawful occupation are to be analyzed under the rational basis test. 7 Plowman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 535 Pa. 314, 319 , 635 A.2d 124, 126 (1993).

2007The degree of scrutiny is determined by the type of interest affected by the statutory classification, and classifications relating to the driving privilege and the right to engage in a lawful occupation are to be analyzed under the rational basis test. 7 Plowman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 535 Pa. 314, 319 , 635 A.2d 124, 126 (1993).

2005Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439 , 737 A.2d 1203, 1206 (1999).

2005Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439 , 737 A.2d 1203, 1206 (1999).

2004See, e.g., McGrory v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 828 A.2d 506 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); Schneider .

2004See, e.g., McGrory v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 828 A.2d 506 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); Schneider .

2001We specifically concluded “the guilty plea with civil reservation in New Jersey cannot be used to thwart the suspension of Licensee’s driving privilege” Bourdeev, 755 A.2d at 62.

1971However, in Angelicchio Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 213 Pa. Superior Ct. 409 , 249 A.2d 788 (1968), we held to the contrary There President Judge Wright, dealing with a situation where a 17-year-old with a junior operator’s license was convicted of speeding and had his license suspended after he turned 18 and possessed a regular operator’s license, stated: “Although Angelicchio’s offense occurred after the effective date (July 24, 1966) of the amendment to The Vehicle Code establishing the point system, the action of the Secretary of Revenue in ordering a suspension, rather than an as

1971However, in Angelicchio Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 213 Pa. Superior Ct. 409 , 249 A.2d 788 (1968), we held to the contrary There President Judge Wright, dealing with a situation where a 17-year-old with a junior operator’s license was convicted of speeding and had his license suspended after he turned 18 and possessed a regular operator’s license, stated: “Although Angelicchio’s offense occurred after the effective date (July 24, 1966) of the amendment to The Vehicle Code establishing the point system, the action of the Secretary of Revenue in ordering a suspension, rather than an as