Legal Opinion
Alexander v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided August 15, 2005No. 51 MAP 2004PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice CASTILLE.
This appeal raises questions regarding the application of the Ignition Interlock Devices Law (hereinafter, “Interlock Law”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 7001 et seq. (repealed), to a recidivist driving under the influence (“DUI”) offender, where one or more of the offender’s earlier convictions occurred before the enactment of the Interlock Law. 1 The Commonwealth Court panel below held that it is an unlawfully retroactive application of the Interlock Law to enforce the interlock requirement on the basis of convictions which occurred before the statute was enacted. We disagree, and…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Scarborough v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Cox v. HartSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Maurer v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Commonwealth v. MockaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Commonwealth v. McCoySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Whalen v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. WilmingtonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Marchese v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Sondergaard v. Commonwealth, Department of TransportationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.