Legal Opinion

Barbour v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 20, 1999PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CAPPY, Justice.

The issue presented to this court is what constitutes “competent medical evidence” sufficient to show that a driver’s medical condition which was unrelated to consumption of alcohol rendered the driver’s refusal to undergo chemical testing unknowing. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the judgment of the Commonwealth Court.

Marshall Barbour (Appellant) was involved in a one-car accident. He was immediately transported to a hospital where he underwent surgery. Prior to Appellant being taken into surgery, the arresting officer asked Appellant to provide a blood sample…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELLSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Mitzelfelt v. KamrinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. COM. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. IngramSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Hainsey v. Com. Pa. Liquor Control Bd.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. PeckCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Kollar v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  2. Fitzpatrick v. NatterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. Hayes v. Mercy Health Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Barron v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Scott v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API