§ 1572. Cancellation of driver's license.
(a) General rule.--
(1) The department may cancel any driver's license upon determining that one of the following
applies:
(i) The licensee was not entitled to the issuance.
(ii) The person failed to give the required or correct information on an application or
certification or committed fraud in making the application or in obtaining the license.
(iii) The license has been materially altered.
(iv) The fee has not been paid.
(v) The licensee voluntarily surrenders his driving privilege.
(2) Upon the cancellation, the licensee shall immediately surrender the canceled license
to the department.
(b) Other states.--The department shall cancel a driver's license issued to an individual who has applied
for a Pennsylvania driver's license after the commission of an offense in another
state which later resulted in suspension, revocation or disqualification in the other
state if the offense would have resulted in the suspension, revocation or disqualification
under this title or where the offense was substantially similar to offenses which
in this State would have caused a suspension, revocation or disqualification.
(July 10, 1990, P.L.356, No.83, eff. 60 days; Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1126, No.151, eff.
imd.; Jan. 27, 2012, P.L.1, No.1, eff. imd.)
2012 Amendment. Act 1 amended subsec. (a)(1)(ii).
1998 Amendment. Act 151 amended subsec. (b).
Cross References. Section 1572 is referred to in sections 1550, 1611 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Piasecki v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 6 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Thereafter, the Department appealed to this Court, [7] arguing that the trial court erred in sustaining Licensee's appeal because Licensee did not offer clear and convincing evidence to rebut the Department's proof that he was convicted of violating Section 1543 of the Vehicle…”
Dick v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 3 A.3d 703 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Section 1572 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1572, which authorized DOT’s 1986 cancellation of Licensee’s license, provided then, as it does now, that DOT may cancel a license if “the licensee was not entitled to the issuance” of the license.”
Ainsworth v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 807 A.2d 933 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 2× “By official notice dated and mailed November 3, 1999, DOT notified appellant that it was canceling his current driver’s license, effective December 8, 1999, and denying his right to apply for a renewal of his driver’s license pursuant to Section 1572 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle…”
Walck v. Com. Dept. of Transp., 625 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Stanley Walck appeals from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas decision upholding the suspension of his operating privileges pursuant to Section 1572 of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1572 [relating to cancellation of a driver’s license].”
Rothstein v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transp., 922 A.2d 17 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
“The trial court concluded in its order that the 1976 ver *19 sion of Section 1572 of the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1572, which was in effect at the time Licensee’s Pennsylvania driver’s license was issued and was in effect at the time of his arrest/conviction in New…”
Hershey v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 669 A.2d 517 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1572. . Our scope of review of the trial court’s decision is limited to determining whether necessary findings made by the trial court are unsupported by competent evidence and the whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.”
Perrotta v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 110 A.3d 255 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
“We, however, do not base our decision on Licensee's revoked status; rather our decision is based upon the fact that Licensee has not applied for a license or a renewal of his license, and PennDOT may not invoke Section 1503(a)(8) unless and until Licensee applies.”
Puskas v. Commonwealth, 542 A.2d 655 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Opinion by Senior Judge Blatt, Joseph Puskas (appellant) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County affirming the cancellation of his drivers license by the Department of Transportation (DOT) pursuant to Section 1572 of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa.…”
Commonwealth v. Hoover, 543 A.2d 191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
“However, by letter dated May 9, 1986, DOT notified Hoover that it was cancelling his license under authority of section 1572 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1572, because it had determined that he was not entitled to the original issuance of the license (Ex.”
PennDOT v. Walck, 15 Pa. D. & C.4th 454 (1992).
· cites it 2× “After a de novo hearing, this court upheld the suspension pursuant to section 1572 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S §1572. Petitioner subsequently appealed this court’s decision necessitating this opinion.”
Commonwealth v. Tardiff, 46 Pa. D. & C.3d 245 (1987).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. §1572. A hearing was held November 23, 1987, at which PennDOT submitted to the court a “packet” of seven documents to substantiate its action.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1572(a)(1)(h) — 1 case
Hershey v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 669 A.2d 517 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 1572. . Our scope of review of the trial court’s decision is limited to determining whether necessary findings made by the trial court are unsupported by competent evidence and the whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.”
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.