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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from McCallum v. Commonwealth.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | McCallum v. Commonwealth Anchor | green | “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.” | 3 |
| 2 | Sitoski v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing | green | “our courts have consistently held that a licensee may not seek civil remedies, i.e., the reversal of a license suspension, where the licensee's rights as a criminal defendant have been compromised” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.