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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2025 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, Department of Transportation v. Lefevergreen2 sentences2025We previously addressed the concept of using a license suspension as a “bargaining chip” in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Lefever, 533 A.2d 501 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), stating: The statutory suspensions following a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test or a conviction for driving under the influence are not bargaining chips to be traded in exchange for criminal convictions; rather, they are mandatory civil penalties, imposed not for penal purposes, but “to protect the public by providing an effective means of denying an intoxicated motorist the privilege of using 2025We previously addressed the concept of using a license suspension as a “bargaining chip” in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Lefever, 533 A.2d 501 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), stating: The statutory suspensions following a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test or a conviction for driving under the influence are not bargaining chips to be traded in exchange for criminal convictions; rather, they are mandatory civil penalties, imposed not for penal purposes, but “to protect the public by providing an effective means of denying an intoxicated motorist the privilege of using | 3 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Ebertgreen2 sentences2025We previously addressed the concept of using a license suspension as a “bargaining chip” in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Lefever, 533 A.2d 501 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), stating: The statutory suspensions following a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test or a conviction for driving under the influence are not bargaining chips to be traded in exchange for criminal convictions; rather, they are mandatory civil penalties, imposed not for penal purposes, but “to protect the public by providing an effective means of denying an intoxicated motorist the privilege of using 2006“The statutory suspensions following ... a conviction for driving under the influence are not bargaining chips to be traded in exchange for criminal convictions; rather, they are mandatory civil penalties, imposed not for penal purposes, but ‘to protect the public by providing an effective means of denying an intoxicated motorist the privilege of using our roads.’ ” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Ebert, 31 Pa.Cmwlth. 82 , 375 A.2d 837, 839 (1977)). | 2 | 2 |
Stair v. COM. DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2018The statutory suspensions following . . . a conviction for [DUI] are not bargaining chips to be traded in exchange for criminal convictions; rather, they are mandatory civil penalties, imposed not for penal purposes, but to protect the public by providing an effective means of denying an intoxicated motorist the privilege of using our roads. 12 Stair, 911 A.2d at 1018 (second alteration in the original) (emphasis added) (quotations and citation omitted). 2013Id. at 1018 (citations and quotations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Wolf
green
2 sentences1995Most importantly, the issue of both a trial court’s and a district attorney’s power to extend the effective date of a license suspension beyond the date of conviction was directly addressed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Wolf, 534 Pa. 283 , 632 A.2d 864 (1993). 1995Most importantly, the issue of both a trial court’s and a district attorney’s power to extend the effective date of a license suspension beyond the date of conviction was directly addressed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Wolf, 534 Pa. 283 , 632 A.2d 864 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.