fine violation in Pennsylvania

1987The court below properly concluded as a matter of law that such a payment does not constitute a fine in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 182(a).” Id. at 228 , 452 A.2d at 527 .

1987The court below properly concluded as a matter of law that such a payment does not constitute a fine in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 182(a).” Id. at 228 , 452 A.2d at 527 .

1985Bradley v. Township of South Londonderry, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 395 , 440 A.2d 665 (1982); City of Philadelphia v. Stradford Arms, Inc., 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 190 , 274 A.2d 277 (1971).

1985Bradley v. Township of South Londonderry, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 395 , 440 A.2d 665 (1982); City of Philadelphia v. Stradford Arms, Inc., 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 190 , 274 A.2d 277 (1971).

1985Bradley v. Township of South Londonderry, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 395 , 440 A.2d 665 (1982); City of Philadelphia v. Stradford Arms, Inc., 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 190 , 274 A.2d 277 (1971).

1985Bradley v. Township of South Londonderry, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 395 , 440 A.2d 665 (1982); City of Philadelphia v. Stradford Arms, Inc., 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 190 , 274 A.2d 277 (1971).

1980In the only case construing PMPC section 515, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the imposition of a fine for violation of a local ordinance following the language of section 515 where the defendant-landowner had agreed to sell subdivided land before complying with plat requirements: Com. v. Fisher, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 25 , 350 A. 2d 428 (1976).

1980In the only case construing PMPC section 515, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the imposition of a fine for violation of a local ordinance following the language of section 515 where the defendant-landowner had agreed to sell subdivided land before complying with plat requirements: Com. v. Fisher, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 25 , 350 A. 2d 428 (1976).

1970Also, in Commonwealth v. Barbono, 56 Pa. Superior Ct. 637 (1914), the court held that when defendant was summarily and without authority sentenced to imprisonment in jail, in default of paying the penalty, a subsequent payment of the fine did not bar defendant from seeking certiorari.

1961The secretary was, therefore, authorized to refuse the appellee his operating privileges for one month”; Levy Motor Vehicle Operator License 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 390 , wherein the court stated: “At the hearings before the secretary and the court, . . . the fact of conviction was not questioned” ; Magida Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 398 , the court stated, “There is no question of the conviction of Magida in New Jersey for speeding.” In addition, in the present case there were no aggravating circumstances such as carelessness or recklessness in the operation of the

1961The court has examined the following cases, all of which can be differentiated: Commonwealth v. Halteman, 192 Pa. Superior 379, in which there was a hearing and admission by defendant that he paid a fine for a violation in another State; Witsch Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, supra, in which notice of conviction was received and wherein the court stated: “The operator was given an opportunity to deny the conviction but made no denial.

1961The secretary was, therefore, authorized to refuse the appellee his operating privileges for one month”; Levy Motor Vehicle Operator License 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 390 , wherein the court stated: “At the hearings before the secretary and the court, . . . the fact of conviction was not questioned” ; Magida Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 398 , the court stated, “There is no question of the conviction of Magida in New Jersey for speeding.” In addition, in the present case there were no aggravating circumstances such as carelessness or recklessness in the operation of the

1957The weight of authority is to the effect that a proceeding to recover a fine for the violation of a municipal ordinance is not a summary proceeding but is civil in nature, and therefore is to be governed and decided by the rules applicable to civil suits: Commonwealth v. Morand, 4 D. & C. 2d 390, 393; Pleasant Hills Borough v. Carroll, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 102, 108 .

1953The mere showing that there was a violation of The Vehicle Code and the subsequent payment of a fine for that violation is not, in itself, sufficient to justify the suspension of a license: Commonwealth v. Wagner, 364 Pa. 566 .

1896Testimony for or against a motion or rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is not admissible. “ On the hearing of a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense the court may not go outside of the case as presented by the claim and affidavit to consider extraneous facts either in support of or against the fine of defense disclosed:” Allegheny City v. McCaffery, 131 Pa. 137 .