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 1 courts 1992–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Banner v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2023“Questions of credibility are for the trial court to resolve.” Id. 8 the Vehicle Code, the Department has the burden of proving at the statutory appeal hearing that the licensee: (1) was arrested for [DUI] by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating or was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle while under [the] influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was warned that refusal might result in a license suspension. 2022To sustain the suspension of a licensee’s operating privilege under Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, DOT has the burden of proving at the statutory appeal hearing that the licensee: (1) was arrested for [DUI] by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating or was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle while under [the] influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was warned that refusal might result in a license suspension. 7 Banner, 737 A.2d at 1206 . | 6 | 9 |
Zwibel v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen2 sentences2019Zwibel v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 832 A.2d 599, 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (emphasis in original). 2018Discussion In Regula, this Court set forth the following four-prong test in order to sustain the appeal of a license suspension under the Implied Consent Law: The Department must prove at a statutory appeal hearing that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving while under the influence by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test, (3) refused to do so, and (4) was warned that a refusal would result in a license suspension. 146 A.3d a | 2 | 3 |
McCallum v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2018With regard to the first prong, we opined: An officer has reasonable grounds to believe an individual was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol “if a reasonable person in the position of a police officer, viewing the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the officer at the time, could conclude that the driver drove his car while under the influence of alcohol.” McCallum v. Commonwealth, [ 592 A.2d 820, 822 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)]. 2003Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439 , 737 A.2d 1203 (1999). 4 An officer has reasonable grounds to believe an individual was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol “if a reasonable person in the position of a police officer, viewing the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the officer at the time, could conclude that the driver drove his car while under the influence of alcohol.” McCollum v. Commonwealth, 140 Pa.Cmwlth. 317 , 592 A.2d 820, 822 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
J.R. Regula v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
1 sentence2018Discussion In Regula, this Court set forth the following four-prong test in order to sustain the appeal of a license suspension under the Implied Consent Law: The Department must prove at a statutory appeal hearing that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving while under the influence by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test, (3) refused to do so, and (4) was warned that a refusal would result in a license suspension. 146 A.3d a | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Barrett
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Malizio (constitutional attacks on the traffic stop have no bearing on the resolution of a license suspension appeal); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Barrett, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 559 , 349 A.2d 798 (1976) (probable cause is a criminal law concept that relates to the validity of an arrest and is inapplicable to a civil license suspension appeal). 3 *604 To establish that a suspension of operating privileges was proper, the Department must prove at a statutory appeal hearing that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving while under the influence by a police offic 2003See, e.g., Malizio (constitutional attacks on the traffic stop have no bearing on the resolution of a license suspension appeal); Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Barrett, 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 559 , 349 A.2d 798 (1976) (probable cause is a criminal law concept that relates to the validity of an arrest and is inapplicable to a civil license suspension appeal). 3 *604 To establish that a suspension of operating privileges was proper, the Department must prove at a statutory appeal hearing that the licensee (1) was arrested for driving while under the influence by a police offic | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Malone v. West Marlborough Township Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences1992On appeal, we reversed and remanded, Malone v. West Marlborough Township Board of Supervisors, 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 347, 570 A.2d 147 (1990) (Malone I), *471 holding that the statutory appeal did not bar the mandamus action because “if the facts as alleged in the complaints are established, i.e. that [the Board’s] denials of [Malone’s] plans were outside the statutory period, then Malone would be entitled to the relief of deemed approval____” Id., 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 351, 570 A.2d at 149 . 1992On appeal, we reversed and remanded, Malone v. West Marlborough Township Board of Supervisors, 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 347, 570 A.2d 147 (1990) (Malone I), *471 holding that the statutory appeal did not bar the mandamus action because “if the facts as alleged in the complaints are established, i.e. that [the Board’s] denials of [Malone’s] plans were outside the statutory period, then Malone would be entitled to the relief of deemed approval____” Id., 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 351, 570 A.2d at 149 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.