Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gombar v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 21, 1996Published

1DissentRodgers, Senior Judge

I respectfully dissent. The trial court correctly set forth the law with respect to the licensee’s burden of proof in this statutory appeal from a license suspension imposed under 75 Pa.C.S § 1547. Once DOT has established a prima facie case to support a suspension, the burden shifts to the licensee to prove that she was unable to knowingly and consciously refuse chemical testing. Plotts v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 660 A.2d 138 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995). Where the licensee has not sustained injuries creating an obvious inability to comply with a request to be tested,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELLSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. KorchakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. ZeltinsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. PeckCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. GrassCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

4 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