Legal Opinion

Plowman v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 1993No. 39 M.D. Appeal Docket 1992PublishedCited by 74 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

This matter is before us as a direct appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County holding that Section 13(m) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. § 780-113(m), is unconstitutional. 1 Common Pleas Court based its conclusion on its determination that Section 13(m) was promulgated to promote a legitimate state objective but failed to accomplish that objective. Although the Legislature attempted to deter and punish individuals who possess, sell, or deliver drugs, the appropriate criminal punishment would serve as a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Commonwealth v. ZettlemoyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Maurer v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  5. James v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

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

3Cited by74 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MockaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Curtis v. KlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Commonwealth v. BurnsworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Alexander v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

69 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