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.
15 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Pedickgreen2 sentences1992Eckrote v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 115 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 18, 539 A.2d 500 (1988). [6] In the case of Department of Transportation v. Roney, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 125, 521 A.2d 98 (1987), we held that "in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Safety v. Pedick, 44 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 44, 403 A.2d 181 (1979), this court stated that nothing in the law provides that a motorist's admission to driving under the influence of alcohol excuses him from his statutory duty of consenting to an alcohol test." Roney , 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 127, 521 A.2d at 99. 1992In the case of Department of Transportation v. Roney, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 125, 521 A.2d 98 (1987), we held that "in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Safety v. Pedick, 44 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 44, 403 A.2d 181 (1979), this court stated that nothing in the law provides that a motorist’s admission to driving under the influence of alcohol excuses him from his statutory duty of consenting to an alcohol test.” Roney , 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 127, 521 A.2d at 99. | 1 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Mummagreen1 sentence2023Walthour v. Dep’t of Transp., 458 A.2d 1066 , 1067 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); see also Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Mumma, 468 A.2d 891, 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (“Voluntary intoxication is not a justification for a motorist’s failure to submit to an alcohol test.”). | 1 | 1 |
Barbour v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green1 sentence2023The burden is on the licensee to prove by “competent medical evidence that a medical condition, unrelated to the consumption of alcohol, rendered [their] refusal unknowing.” Barbour v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver 5 Licensing, 732 A.2d 1157, 1160 (Pa. 1999) (citation and internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cassidygreen2 sentences1987Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cassidy, 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 582 , 521 A.2d 59 *614 (1987), citing Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Struzzeri, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 12 , 504 A.2d 961 (1986). 1987Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cassidy, 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 582 , 521 A.2d 59 *614 (1987), citing Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Struzzeri, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 12 , 504 A.2d 961 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Pratt v. Bureau of Traffic Safetygreen2 sentences1983Opinion by Judge Craig, In Pratt v. Department of Transportation, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 55, 57, n. 1 , 434 A.2d 918, 919, n. 1 (1981), we noted, but did not there have to decide, the question of whether or not extreme intoxication could be a lawful justification fora motorist’s failure to submit to an alcohol test. 1983Opinion by Judge Craig, In Pratt v. Department of Transportation, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 55, 57, n. 1 , 434 A.2d 918, 919, n. 1 (1981), we noted, but did not there have to decide, the question of whether or not extreme intoxication could be a lawful justification fora motorist’s failure to submit to an alcohol test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Struzzeri
neutral
2 sentences1987Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Struzzeri, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 12 , 504 A.2d 961 (1986). 1987Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Struzzeri, 95 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 12 , 504 A.2d 961 (1986). | 4 | 1986–1987 |
Walthour v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2023Walthour v. Dep’t of Transp., 458 A.2d 1066 , 1067 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); see also Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Mumma, 468 A.2d 891, 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (“Voluntary intoxication is not a justification for a motorist’s failure to submit to an alcohol test.”). 1987In Walthour v. Department of Transportation, 74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 53, 55 , 458 A.2d 1066 , 1067 (1983), we stated: Where a driver has consumed alcoholic beverages sufficient to make him mentally or physically incapable of assenting to, or participating in, the alcohol test, that failure obviously stems directly from the driver’s voluntary decision to imbibe alcohol. | 3 | 1983–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Roney
neutral
2 sentences1992Eckrote v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 115 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 18, 539 A.2d 500 (1988). [6] In the case of Department of Transportation v. Roney, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 125, 521 A.2d 98 (1987), we held that "in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Safety v. Pedick, 44 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 44, 403 A.2d 181 (1979), this court stated that nothing in the law provides that a motorist's admission to driving under the influence of alcohol excuses him from his statutory duty of consenting to an alcohol test." Roney , 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 127, 521 A.2d at 99. 1992In the case of Department of Transportation v. Roney, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 125, 521 A.2d 98 (1987), we held that "in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Safety v. Pedick, 44 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 44, 403 A.2d 181 (1979), this court stated that nothing in the law provides that a motorist’s admission to driving under the influence of alcohol excuses him from his statutory duty of consenting to an alcohol test.” Roney , 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 127, 521 A.2d at 99. | 2 | 1991–1992 |
Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2013I understand that I must not drive, perform safety-sensitive duties, or operate heavy equipment because the results are positive.” Id., Employer’s Exhibit E-4. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant’s refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant’s failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant’s 2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant's refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant's failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant's | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Singleton v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.
green
2 sentences2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant’s refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant’s failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant’s 2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant’s refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant’s failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant’s | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant’s refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant’s failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant’s 2008Cf. Rebel (analyzing claimant's refusal to submit to a random drug test by employer under Section 402(e)); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (discussing claimant's failure of an alcohol test and arrival at work visibly intoxicated in the context of Section 402(e)); Artis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 699 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (analyzing discharge of claimant for failure of a drug test under Section 402(e)); Singleton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 397 , 558 A.2d 574 (1989) (discussing claimant's | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Jaggers
green
1 sentence2006Specifically, section 1547(b)(2)(h) requires police to inform one arrested for DUI that ‘upon conviction, plea or adjudication of delinquency for violating section 3802(a), the person will be subject to the penalties provided in section 3804(c) (relating to penalties).’ ” Id. at 36 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Eckrote v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1992Eckrote v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, 115 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 18, 539 A.2d 500 (1988). [6] In the case of Department of Transportation v. Roney, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 125, 521 A.2d 98 (1987), we held that "in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Safety v. Pedick, 44 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 44, 403 A.2d 181 (1979), this court stated that nothing in the law provides that a motorist's admission to driving under the influence of alcohol excuses him from his statutory duty of consenting to an alcohol test." Roney , 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 127, 521 A.2d at 99. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Commonwealth v. Fullerton
green
2 sentences1986Opinion by Judge Craig, In Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Fullerton, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 609 , 377 A.2d 1024 (1977), we held that a motorists refusal to submit to a second breathalyzer alcohol test, when the breathalyzer machine did not function properly the first time, constituted a violation of the statutory duty to submit to an alcohol test. 1986Opinion by Judge Craig, In Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Fullerton, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 609 , 377 A.2d 1024 (1977), we held that a motorists refusal to submit to a second breathalyzer alcohol test, when the breathalyzer machine did not function properly the first time, constituted a violation of the statutory duty to submit to an alcohol test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.