COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Fiester
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentPalladino, Judge
I respectfully dissent. With the addition of the per se confusion rule to the amorphous concept of “knowing and *351conscious refusals,” I believe the majority is attempting to create legislation by judicial fiat which is contrary to the clear language and intent of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547 and contrary to the supreme court’s decisions in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 521 Pa. 242, 555 A.2d 873 (1989) and Commonwealth v. McFadden, 522 Pa. 100, 559 A.2d 924 (1989).
Critical to our inquiry regarding the duties of Commonwealth agents to licensed motor-vehicle operators…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELLSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Com., Dept. of Transp. v. WysockiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. McFaddenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. DayCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. GallagherCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.