§ 905. Presumptions created.
The publication in the code, the permanent supplements thereto, or the bulletin of
any document shall create a rebuttable presumption:
(1) That it was duly issued, prescribed or promulgated.
(2) (Deleted by amendment).
(3) That there has been compliance with all of the following applicable to such document:
(i) Section 612 of the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative
Code of 1929.
(ii) The act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.769, No.240), referred to as the Commonwealth Documents
Law.
(iii) Sections 204(b) and 301(10) of the act of October 15, 1980 (P.L.950, No.164), known
as the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.
(iv) The act of June 25, 1982 (P.L.633, No.181), known as the Regulatory Review Act.
(v) This part.
(vi) 1 Pa. Code Pt. I (relating to Joint Committee on Documents).
(Sept. 24, 2014, P.L.2461, No.133, eff. 60 days)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case:
Muscarella v. Commonwealth, 87 A.3d 966 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
Muscarella v. Commonwealth, 87 A.3d 966 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“See Section 905(2) of the CDL, 45 Pa.C.S. § 905(2) (stating that the publication of any document in the Code creates a rebuttable presumption that the document “was approved as to legality”).”
Weaver v. Dep't of Corr., 720 A.2d 178 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 45 Pa.C.S. § 905, that publication created a rebuttable presumption that the regulations were duly issued, approved as to legality by the Department of Justice, and that all applicable requirements for the promulgation of the regulations had been met.”
Silo v. Ridge, 728 A.2d 394 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
“Pursuant to 45 Pa.C.S. § 905(1) and (2), final publication of the regulations in the Pennsylvania Bulletin creates a rebutta-ble presumption that the regulations were duly promulgated and have been approved as to legality.”
Sullivan v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 682 A.2d 5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The full text of the Compact has never appeared in the Pennsylvania Bulletin or in the Pennsylvania Code; therefore, DOT is not entitled to the statutory presumption of 45 Pa.C.S. § 905 that the document was duly promulgated and that all applicable regulations were followed.”
Jeffers v. Commonwealth, 601 A.2d 401 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).
“*143 DOT counters that the regulation is presumed valid because it was published in the Pennsylvania Code and that, pursuant to section 905 of the CDL, 45 Pa.C.S. § 905, publication in the Pennsylvania Code creates a rebuttable presumption concerning the propriety of the…”
PA Indep. Oil & Gas Assoc. v. DEP & EQB of the Com. of PA (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Finally, the regulation was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, which created a rebuttable presumption of validity under Section 905 of the CDL, 14 45 Pa. C.S. §905, which was not rebutted.”
Washington Twp. Indep. S.D. v. PA State Bd. of Ed. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).
“1996) (en banc) (citing 45 Pa. C.S. § 905). WTISD does not offer any citation to any subsequent act by the legislature, the Board, or the courts declaring the published standards invalid, repealing them, replacing them, or amending them in any material way.”
— 45 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 905(1) — 1 case
Silo v. Ridge, 728 A.2d 394 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
“Pursuant to 45 Pa.C.S. § 905(1) and (2), final publication of the regulations in the Pennsylvania Bulletin creates a rebutta-ble presumption that the regulations were duly promulgated and have been approved as to legality.”
— 45 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 905(2) — 1 case
Muscarella v. Commonwealth, 87 A.3d 966 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“See Section 905(2) of the CDL, 45 Pa.C.S. § 905(2) (stating that the publication of any document in the Code creates a rebuttable presumption that the document “was approved as to legality”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.