Crooks v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCappy, Justice
I agree with the majority that the trial court’s order rescinding the suspension of appellee’s driver’s license must be *443reversed. I write separately to set forth my rationale for reversal, and to articulate the issues that I believe this case resolves. I disagree, however, with the majority’s decision to reinstate the suspension of appellee’s driver’s license. It would appear that ancillary or undecided issues that fall outside the scope of this court’s direct review under 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(7) have been raised. I would, therefore, remand this matter for further proceedings.
My reading of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McCaffertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Harrington v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Petrovick v. COM., DEPT OF TRANSP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Petrovick v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Scott v. Commonwealth, Department of TransportationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.