Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 3304. Overtaking vehicle on the right.
(a) General rule.--The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only
under one of the following conditions:
(1) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn, except that such
movement shall not be made by driving off the berm or shoulder of the highway.
(2) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines
of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaken vehicle,
except that such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.
(b) Limitation.--No passing movement under this section shall be made unless the movement can be made
in safety.
Cross References. Section 3304 is referred to in sections 1535, 3326, 3327 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Sands, 887 A.2d 261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
Commonwealth v. Sands, 887 A.2d 261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
“¶ 14 All these cases reaffirm the court’s holding in Whitmyer that the police must have probable cause to stop a vehicle for a suspected violation of the Vehicle Code. In each case, the defendant litigated a motion to suppress based upon an alleged lack of probable cause.”
Commonwealth v. Wituszynski, 784 A.2d 1284 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Traeger pulled him over to cite him for passing on the right in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3304. When Sgt. Traeger approached appellant's vehicle, he noticed that appellant's breath had a moderate odor of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot, his upper torso was weaving as he sat in…”
Commonwealth v. Wituszynski, 750 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 2× “§§ 3731(a)(1) and 3731(a)(4), and for Overtaking a Vehicle on the Right, ("OVR"), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3304. On appeal, Appellant contends that the suppression court erred in failing to suppress the physical evidence obtained by police.”
In Re: Peterman, T., Appeal of: Peterman, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(2), (b). - 10 - J-A29036-21 that he passed the Decedent on the right to support its position that they “would have unquestionably prevailed” if the trial court had employed the appropriate de novo standard of review instead of a differential abuse of…”
Com. v. Robinson, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
“Rather, there must be indicia that the speed “is unreasonable or imprudent under the circumstances (of which there must also be proof), which are the ‘conditions’ and ‘actual and potential hazards then existing’ of ____________________________________________ 4 Appellant also…”
McKinney v. Shelkin, 16 Pa. D. & C.5th 157 (2010).
“See 75 Pa.C.S. §3304. A driver must be “capable of stopping within the distance he can clearly see” under Pennsylvania’s assured clear distance rule.”
O'Hara v. Commonwealth, 624 A.2d 266 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
“The notice indicated that the most recent assignment of 3 points to her record, which brought the total to 11 points, resulted from her conviction for violating Section 3304 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3304 (improper passing) on July 23, 1991.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3304(a)(2) — 1 case
In Re: Peterman, T., Appeal of: Peterman, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(2), (b). - 10 - J-A29036-21 that he passed the Decedent on the right to support its position that they “would have unquestionably prevailed” if the trial court had employed the appropriate de novo standard of review instead of a differential abuse of…”
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.