9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 2 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. Starrygreen2 sentences2020See Starry, 196 A.3d at 661 . 2019In Commonwealth v. Starry, 196 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal granted, 204 A.3d 369 (Pa. 2019),6 a panel of this Court considered whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and dismissing with prejudice a charge of DUI – highest rate of alcohol, based upon a violation of the two-hour rule. | 1 | 2 |
Com. v. Arias, E.green1 sentence2026See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring the argument section of an appellant’s brief to contain “discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”); Commonwealth v. Arias, 286 A.3d 341, 349 (Pa. Super. 2022) (finding waiver where appellant failed to develop claims with citation to applicable legal authority). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Modaffaregreen2 sentences2020Op. at 11, the Majority primarily draws upon Commonwealth v. Modaffare, 601 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 1992), a decision that predates by over a decade the General Assembly’s adoption of the two-hour rule and the corresponding exception thereto. [J-90-2019] [MO: Saylor, C.J.] - 4 lower courts faced in attempting to draw this inevitably blurry line. 2020See id. at 1143 n.7. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019In Commonwealth v. Starry, 196 A.3d 649 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal granted, 204 A.3d 369 (Pa. 2019),6 a panel of this Court considered whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and dismissing with prejudice a charge of DUI – highest rate of alcohol, based upon a violation of the two-hour rule. 2019In that case, the ____________________________________________ 6 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocator review on the following issues: (1) Whether the rationale and holding in Commonwealth v. Segida, 604 Pa. 103 , 985 A.2d 871 (2009), applies to a charge of driving under the influence brought pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c), which has a statutory requirement that the defendant have an alcohol concentration in his or her blood or breath of .16% or greater within two hours after driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle. (2) Whether the Super | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Pughgreen1 sentence2016Commonwealth v. Pugh, 101 A.3d 820, 822 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal denied, 117 A.3d 296 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Benngreen1 sentence2015It is well settled that “the appellate courts of this Commonwealth will not decide moot questions.” Commonwealth v. Benn, 680 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Credifordgreen2 sentences2007Although the offense is defined by reference to a BAC measurement taken some time after driving, the prohibited conduct is drinking excessively and then driving, a conclusion buttressed by the title of Section 3802, “Driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance.” See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1924 (directing that, although the title is not controlling, it may nonetheless “be considered in the construction” of the statute); 10 accord State v. Crediford, 130 Wash.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129, 1132 (1996) (holding that, in spite of the two-hour rule, the statutorily prohibited conduct is driving af 2007Although the offense is defined by reference to a BAC measurement taken some time after driving, the prohibited conduct is drinking excessively and then driving, a conclusion buttressed by the title of Section 3802, "Driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance." See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1924 (directing that, although the title is not controlling, it may nonetheless "be considered in the construction" of the statute); [10] accord State v. Crediford, 130 Wash.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129, 1132 (1996) (holding that, in spite of the two-hour rule, the statutorily prohibited conduct is driving | 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. Eichler
green
2 sentences2024Thus, “[i]n a section 3802(c) prosecution, when the blood test does not take place within two hours after the defendant drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the vehicle, test results are subject to suppression unless [the] Commonwealth proves good cause for the delay -5- J-S07034-24 in obtaining a blood test and the defendant did not imbibe alcohol between his arrest and his blood test.” Eichler, 133 A.3d at 786 . 2019In Commonwealth v. Eichler, 133 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 161 A.3d 791 (Pa. 2016), a panel of this Court considered whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress the defendant’s blood test results, which were obtained more than two hours after he struck a wheelchair-bound pedestrian with his vehicle. | 2 | 2019–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Segida
green
2 sentences2019In that case, the ____________________________________________ 6 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocator review on the following issues: (1) Whether the rationale and holding in Commonwealth v. Segida, 604 Pa. 103 , 985 A.2d 871 (2009), applies to a charge of driving under the influence brought pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c), which has a statutory requirement that the defendant have an alcohol concentration in his or her blood or breath of .16% or greater within two hours after driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle. (2) Whether the Super 2019In that case, the ____________________________________________ 6 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocator review on the following issues: (1) Whether the rationale and holding in Commonwealth v. Segida, 604 Pa. 103 , 985 A.2d 871 (2009), applies to a charge of driving under the influence brought pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c), which has a statutory requirement that the defendant have an alcohol concentration in his or her blood or breath of .16% or greater within two hours after driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle. (2) Whether the Super | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Beasley
green
1 sentence2019In Commonwealth v. Eichler, 133 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 161 A.3d 791 (Pa. 2016), a panel of this Court considered whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress the defendant’s blood test results, which were obtained more than two hours after he struck a wheelchair-bound pedestrian with his vehicle. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State, City of Mankato v. Chirpich
green
1 sentence2007See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g). [4] The limits were changed in the new statute. [5] Section 3731(a)(5) of the old statute provided that it was a crime to exceed the BAC limit "if the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10% or greater at the time of a chemical test of a sample of the person's breath, blood or urine, which sample is: (i) obtained within three hours after the person drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle. " Section 3802(c) of the new act says that "An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sereika v. State
green
2 sentences2007In Sereika v. State, 114 Nev. 142 , 955 P.2d 175 (1998), for example, the Nevada court explained that there is at least one conceivable rational basis for the enactment of [Nevada's DUI law containing a similar two-hour rule], completely separable from [a presumption that the defendant's BAC at the time of driving was the same as at the time of testing]. 2007In Sereika v. State, 114 Nev. 142 , 955 P.2d 175 (1998), for example, the Nevada court explained that there is at least one conceivable rational basis for the enactment of [Nevada's DUI law containing a similar two-hour rule], completely separable from [a presumption that the defendant's BAC at the time of driving was the same as at the time of testing]. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Crediford
green
2 sentences2007Although the offense is defined by reference to a BAC measurement taken some time after driving, the prohibited conduct is drinking excessively and then driving, a conclusion buttressed by the title of Section 3802, “Driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance.” See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1924 (directing that, although the title is not controlling, it may nonetheless “be considered in the construction” of the statute); 10 accord State v. Crediford, 130 Wash.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129, 1132 (1996) (holding that, in spite of the two-hour rule, the statutorily prohibited conduct is driving af 2007Although the offense is defined by reference to a BAC measurement taken some time after driving, the prohibited conduct is drinking excessively and then driving, a conclusion buttressed by the title of Section 3802, "Driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance." See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1924 (directing that, although the title is not controlling, it may nonetheless "be considered in the construction" of the statute); [10] accord State v. Crediford, 130 Wash.2d 747 , 927 P.2d 1129, 1132 (1996) (holding that, in spite of the two-hour rule, the statutorily prohibited conduct is driving | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of Fargo v. Stensland
green
1 sentence2007See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g). [4] The limits were changed in the new statute. [5] Section 3731(a)(5) of the old statute provided that it was a crime to exceed the BAC limit "if the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10% or greater at the time of a chemical test of a sample of the person's breath, blood or urine, which sample is: (i) obtained within three hours after the person drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle. " Section 3802(c) of the new act says that "An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Commonwealth v. Mikulan
green
2 sentences2007For the reasons set forth at length in Mikulan, 504 Pa. at 252-56 , 470 A.2d at 1343-45 , statutes that prohibit driving after drinking by reference to a threshold BAC level are not unconstitutionally vague. 2007For the reasons set forth at length in Mikulan, 504 Pa. at 252-56 , 470 A.2d at 1343-45 , statutes that prohibit driving after drinking by reference to a threshold BAC level are not unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Howren
green
2 sentences2007See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g). [4] The limits were changed in the new statute. [5] Section 3731(a)(5) of the old statute provided that it was a crime to exceed the BAC limit "if the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10% or greater at the time of a chemical test of a sample of the person's breath, blood or urine, which sample is: (i) obtained within three hours after the person drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle. " Section 3802(c) of the new act says that "An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of 2007See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g). [4] The limits were changed in the new statute. [5] Section 3731(a)(5) of the old statute provided that it was a crime to exceed the BAC limit "if the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10% or greater at the time of a chemical test of a sample of the person's breath, blood or urine, which sample is: (i) obtained within three hours after the person drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle. " Section 3802(c) of the new act says that "An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Rose
green
2 sentences2007See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g). [4] The limits were changed in the new statute. [5] Section 3731(a)(5) of the old statute provided that it was a crime to exceed the BAC limit "if the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10% or greater at the time of a chemical test of a sample of the person's breath, blood or urine, which sample is: (i) obtained within three hours after the person drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle. " Section 3802(c) of the new act says that "An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of 2007See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g). [4] The limits were changed in the new statute. [5] Section 3731(a)(5) of the old statute provided that it was a crime to exceed the BAC limit "if the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of the person is 0.10% or greater at the time of a chemical test of a sample of the person's breath, blood or urine, which sample is: (i) obtained within three hours after the person drove, operated, or was in actual physical control of the vehicle. " Section 3802(c) of the new act says that "An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.