Martin v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice CASTILLE.
This appeal arises from the suspension of appellant’s operating privilege for refusing to undergo chemical testing pursuant to the Implied Consent Law, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547. The lower courts disagreed over the authority of a municipal police officer to invoke the Implied Consent Law outside the officer’s defined territorial jurisdiction, as provided in the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8951 et seq. (“MPJA” or “Act”). The trial court found that the officer lacked authority under the MPJA to pursue and arrest appellant in an adjoining jurisdiction; that…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. EnglishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. Gilmour Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. O'SheaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- In Re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 General ElectionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Ramich v. Worker's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Commonwealth v. FithianSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Commonwealth v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Roethlein v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.