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.
13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
McGrory v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2011See McGrory v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 591 Pa. 56 , 915 A.2d 1155 , 1156 n. 1 and 1162 n. 6 (2007); Alexan der v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 583 Pa. 592 , 880 A.2d 552 , 553 n. 1 and 554 n. 3 (2005). 2011See McGrory v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 591 Pa. 56 , 915 A.2d 1155 , 1156 n. 1 and 1162 n. 6 (2007); Alexan der v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 583 Pa. 592 , 880 A.2d 552 , 553 n. 1 and 554 n. 3 (2005). | 1 | 4 |
Alexander v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2011See McGrory v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 591 Pa. 56 , 915 A.2d 1155 , 1156 n. 1 and 1162 n. 6 (2007); Alexan der v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, 583 Pa. 592 , 880 A.2d 552 , 553 n. 1 and 554 n. 3 (2005). 2007Applying this principle, the Court held that the licensee’s September 2001 conviction, occurring after the enactment of Section 7002, triggered the System requirement: “It is not the two previous DUI convictions that have exposed [the licensee] to the interlock requirement; it is his third conviction, occurring after passage of [Section 7002], which brings him within its purview.” Id. at 605, 880 A.2d at 559-60 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
Riedel v. HUMAN REL. COM'N OF READINGgreen2 sentences2005Probst requires a conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the instant retroactivity-based challenge to the legality of the Department’s imposition of the interlock requirement. 6 *600 As we have stated, “[jurisdiction relates solely to the competency of the particular court or administrative body to determine controversies of the general class to which the case then presented for its consideration belongs.” Mockaitis, 834 A.2d at 495 (quoting Riedel v. Human Relations Commn. of Reading, 559 Pa. 34 , 739 A.2d 121, 124 (1999)). 2005Probst requires a conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the instant retroactivity-based challenge to the legality of the Department’s imposition of the interlock requirement. 6 *600 As we have stated, “[jurisdiction relates solely to the competency of the particular court or administrative body to determine controversies of the general class to which the case then presented for its consideration belongs.” Mockaitis, 834 A.2d at 495 (quoting Riedel v. Human Relations Commn. of Reading, 559 Pa. 34 , 739 A.2d 121, 124 (1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Probst v. Com., Dept. of Transp.green2 sentences2005In holding that the Courts of Common Pleas have jurisdiction over such appeals, Probst found that the interlock requirement is not a mere condition of restoration, but rather an extension of a license suspension: *601 Id. at 1141 (footnote omitted). 2005In holding that the Courts of Common Pleas have jurisdiction over such appeals, Probst found that the interlock requirement is not a mere condition of restoration, but rather an extension of a license suspension: *601 Id. at 1141 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
McMahon v. McMahongreen2 sentences2005Alexander, 822 A.2d at 94 (citing McMahon v. McMahon, 417 Pa.Super. 592 , 612 A.2d 1360, 1364 (1992)). 2005Alexander, 822 A.2d at 94 (citing McMahon v. McMahon, 417 Pa.Super. 592 , 612 A.2d 1360, 1364 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schneider v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2007Citing to the Commonwealth Court’s decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002), appeal granted, 577 Pa. 674 , 842 A.2d 408 (2004), 4 where that court held that Penn- DOT lacked authority to enforce the interlock requirement absent a court order, the trial court summarily sustained appellee’s statutory appeal. 2007Citing to the Commonwealth Court’s decision in Schneider v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 790 A.2d 363 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002), appeal granted, 577 Pa. 674 , 842 A.2d 408 (2004), 4 where that court held that PennDOT lacked authority to enforce the interlock requirement absent a court order, the trial court summarily sustained appellee’s statutory appeal. | 3 | 2004–2007 |
Watterson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
2 sentences2004In Watterson , we permitted a “now for then” appeal based on the rationale that PennDOT’s interlock requirement was void without court sanction. 816 A.2d at 1227 . 2004In Watterson , we permitted a “now for then” appeal based on the rationale that PennDOT’s interlock requirement was void without court sanction. 816 A.2d at 1227 . | 3 | 2004–2004 |
Commonwealth v. Mockaitis
green
2 sentences2007This Court granted review of the question of whether, in light of our decision in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 575 Pa. 5 , 834 A.2d 488 (2003), PennDOT had independent authority to enforce the interlock requirement, where the trial court failed to do so. 2007This Court granted review of the question of whether, in light of our decision in Commonwealth v. Mockaitis, 575 Pa. 5 , 834 A.2d 488 (2003), PennDOT had independent authority to enforce the interlock requirement, where the trial court failed to do so. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Younger v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2023Our Supreme Court has explained that by enacting Section 3805, the General Assembly “delegate[ed] to the Department, not the courts, the authority to impose the interlock requirement.” Whalen v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 32 A.3d 677 , 680 n.3 (Pa. 2011) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police
green
2 sentences2005The Department analogizes this case to this Court’s recent decision in Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 576 Pa. 365 , 839 A.2d 265 (2003), which rejected an ex post facto challenge to the Pennsylvania State Police’s (“PSP”) application of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 922 , to prevent a former convict from purchasing a rifle. 2005The Department analogizes this case to this Court’s recent decision in Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 576 Pa. 365 , 839 A.2d 265 (2003), which rejected an ex post facto challenge to the Pennsylvania State Police’s (“PSP”) application of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 922 , to prevent a former convict from purchasing a rifle. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Alexander v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
1 sentence2005Alexander, 822 A.2d at 94 (citing McMahon v. McMahon, 417 Pa.Super. 592 , 612 A.2d 1360, 1364 (1992)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Conroy v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
neutral
2 sentences2004This Court followed the holding of Watterson on the issue of nunc pro tunc appeals from notices of intent to impose an interlock requirement in countless later cases, including Hines v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 820 A.2d 922 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), and Conroy v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 825 A.2d 799 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). 2004This Court followed the holding of Watterson on the issue of nunc pro tunc appeals from notices of intent to impose an interlock requirement in countless later cases, including Hines v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 820 A.2d 922 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), and Conroy v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 825 A.2d 799 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hines v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
neutral
2 sentences2004This Court followed the holding of Watterson on the issue of nunc pro tunc appeals from notices of intent to impose an interlock requirement in countless later cases, including Hines v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 820 A.2d 922 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), and Conroy v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 825 A.2d 799 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). 2004This Court followed the holding of Watterson on the issue of nunc pro tunc appeals from notices of intent to impose an interlock requirement in countless later cases, including Hines v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 820 A.2d 922 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), and Conroy v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 825 A.2d 799 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.