Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Lutz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 26, 1985No. 60 to 64, 66, 75 to 77 W.D. Misc. Docket, 1984PublishedCited by 142 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Justice.
On application of attorneys for the Commonwealth, we have assumed plenary jurisdiction in the above-captioned nine cases, which have been consolidated herein for determination. Although these cases come to us in various procedural postures, the dispositive question in each is whether in a prosecution for drunk driving under the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3731, a defendant may be admitted to Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) over the objection of the attorney for the Commonwealth. In all of these cases, the attorneys for the Commonwealth…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Oyler v. BolesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Commonwealth v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Shade v. Commonwealth of Pa., Dept. of Transp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. BoernerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Pyle v. COURT OF CP OF CUMBERLANDSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
3Cited by142 opinions
- Gilles v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Commonwealth v. TarbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McCaffertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Com. v. Chichkin, I.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
- Commonwealth v. Parker White Metal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
137 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.