Whalen v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice McCAFFERY.
In this case, we must determine whether acceptance into an Accelerated Rehabilita-five Disposition (“ARD”) program following a second charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) constitutes a DUI violation and thus triggers the requirement for installation of an ignition interlock system as a condition of license restoration. Because we determine that the Commonwealth Court erred in its interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions when it concluded that acceptance into ARD did not establish a DUI violation, we reverse.
On August 30, 1997, John K.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ShifflerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Commonwealth v. MockaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. LutzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. PlegerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- McGrory v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Com. v. Richards, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022
- McGrath v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational AffairsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Commonwealth v. RegaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Metroclub Condominium Ass'n v. 201-59 North Eighth Street AssociatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Sondergaard v. Commonwealth, Department of TransportationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.