Pennsylvania

CASES
  • Click here to download all Pennsylvania cases
  • Aten v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 649 A.2d 732 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994)
    For purposes of disqualification of commercial driver's license based on West Virginia conviction for driving commercial motor vehicle without holding a commercial driver's license, fact that comparable Pennsylvania statute provides exception from conviction for driving without license if driver produces license within 15 days, while West Virginia law does not, did not prevent the offenses from being essentially similar where the driver lacked a valid commercial driver's license at the time of the offense and was unable to produce one within 15 days to avoid disqualification, and did not demonstrate that he would not have been convicted had the offense been committed in Pennsylvania.
  • Chatfield v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Not Reported in A.3d (2011)
    The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the March 29, 2010, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) that sustained the statutory appeals filed by Lawrence A. Chatfield (Licensee) from the thirty-day suspension of his personal driving privilege and the one-year disqualification of his commercial driving privilege that were imposed by DOT pursuant to sections 1611(a) and 3807(d) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § § 1611(a), 3807(d). Reversed.
  • Commonwealth of Penn. v. Dugan, 769 A.2d 512 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)
    Defendant was convicted of driving commercial motor vehicle without commercial driver's license, and he appealed. The Superior Court held that: (1) defendant who was driving pickup truck towing horse trailer was driving a commercial motor vehicle for which Class A license was required, and since defendant did not have Class A license, he was in violation of statute prohibiting driving commercial motor vehicle without commercial driver's license; and (2) the phrase "commercial motor vehicle" includes the concept of combination of motorized vehicles and towed vehicles for purposes of statute requiring the driver of a commercial motor vehicle to have a commercial driver's license.
  • Com. v. Williams, 624 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)
    Tractor trailer cab was "commercial vehicle," for purposes of convicting driver of operating commercial vehicle while under influence of alcohol, even though cab was not hooked to trailer and driver was using cab for personal transportation when he was stopped; cab alone was still monstrous vehicle with potential to cause severe damage if part of an accident and, thus, was within class of vehicles for which legislature intended to more severely limit permissible blood alcohol content of drivers.
  • Cummings v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, Not Reported in A.3d...
    The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing appeals from the April 21, 2010 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County sustaining the appeal of Licensee's commercial driver's license suspension. The issue before the Commonwealth Court is whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it sustained Licensee's appeal thereby allowing Licensee to "mask" his Driving Under the Influence offense in violation of federal and state law. Affirmed.
  • Dietrich v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 82 A.3d 1087 (2013)
    Motorist sought review of an order of the Department of Transportation (DOT), Bureau of Driver Licensing, imposing a one year suspension of his operating privileges based on his conviction for failing to stop and remain at scene of an accident involving death or personal injury, and a lifetime disqualification of his commercial driving privileges. The Court of Common Pleas, Berks County, No. 2012–23860, sustained motorist's appeal from the one-year suspension of his operating privileges and reduced lifetime disqualification of commercial driving privilege to a five-year disqualification. DOT appealed. The Commonwealth Court, No. 200 C.D. 2013, held that: [1] motorist failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the presumption that he had been convicted of failing to stop and remain at the scene of an accident, and thus, trial court erred in overturning mandatory one-year suspension of operating privileges based on such conviction, and [2] trial court lacked authority to reduce mandatory lifetime disqualification of motorist's commercial driving privileges to five-year disqualification. Reversed.
  • Hollabaugh v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver..., Not Reported in A.2d...
    Licensee appeals from the July 13, 2009, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (trial court), which affirmed a decision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) to disqualify Licensee from driving a commercial motor vehicle for one year pursuant to section 1611(a) of the Vehicle Code. Commonwealth Court affirmed.
  • Kolva v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 977 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009)
    Following motorist's voluntary withdrawal from Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program, Department of Transportation could no longer enforce automatic one-year suspension of motorist's commercial driver's license.
  • Poborski v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 964 A.2d 66 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009)
    After the licensee was charged with DUI, he accepted an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition ("ARD") of the DUI charge. After he was notified of the suspension and disqualification, he filed a petition to be removed from the ARD program and to remand his case to the magistrate. The trial court granted the petition, after which the licensee argued that his voluntary withdrawal from the ARD program should trigger a nullification of the suspension and disqualification. The court stated that a licensee's mere acceptance into the ARD program was sufficient to trigger a license suspension. A licensee's acceptance of the ARD program, however, constituted a conscious choice of an alternative to prosecution and a knowing waiver of his rights to prove his innocence or risk conviction. It followed, then, that the trial court's grant of the licensee's petition to withdraw from the ARD program had to be read as a nullification of that knowing waiver. Therefore, while the DOT's suspension and disqualification were valid at the time they were made, the trial court's subsequent nullification of that acceptance had to be read to also nullify DOT's authority to continue any enforcement of its suspension and disqualification.
  • Ronk v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, Not Reported in A.3d (2011)
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Bureau of Driver Licensing appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County sustaining the appeal of Licensee from a one-year disqualification of his commercial driver's license. PennDOT issued the suspension under authority of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1611, after Licensee was convicted in New York State for operating a vehicle without a license. Chapter 16, also known as the Uniform Commercial Driver's License Act, authorizes PennDOT to suspend a Pennsylvania commercial license where the licensee is convicted in another state of a violation that would authorize a commercial license suspension under Pennsylvania law. Discerning no error in the trial court's conclusion that Licensee's New York conviction was not for an offense that would result in the loss of a commercial license in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
  • Shewack v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 993 A.2d 916 (2010)
    After licensee's commercial driver's license (CDL) was suspended for one-year, he appealed. The Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County, No. 18239 of 2008, reversed the suspension. The Department of Transportation (DOT) appealed. The Commonwealth Court, No. 1417 C.D. 2009, held that offense on which licensee was convicted in Maryland was not sufficiently similar to a Pennsylvania offense so as to justify the DOT's disqualification of licensee's CDL. Affirmed.
  • Sondergaard v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 65 A.3d 994 (2013)
    Commercial driver appealed the lifetime revocation of his commercial driver's license (CDL) by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, based on driver's two convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance (DUI). The Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County, No. 8004 CIVIL 2011, Cheslock, Senior Judge, reversed. Commonwealth appealed. [Holding:] The Commonwealth Court, No. 224 C.D. 2012, James Gardner Colins, Senior Judge, held that lifetime CDL ban applied to driver, regardless of whether vehicle operated at time of his DUI offenses was commercial or personal. Reversed.
  • Twoey v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, Not Reported in A.3d (2011)
    The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County that sustained Licensee's appeal from DOT's suspension of her commercial driver's license (CDL) for refusing to consent to chemical testing after an automobile accident. At issue is whether Licensee needed to provide competent medical testimony to establish that her injuries and the interaction of drugs with alcohol prevented her from knowingly refusing to submit to chemical testing. The Commonwealth Court applied its recent decision in Kollar v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 7 A.3d 336 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010), and concluded Licensee needed to provide competent medical testimony to support her claim. Accordingly, Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's order.
  • Walck v. Com. Dept. of Transp. Bureau of Driver Licensing, 625 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993)
    Cancelling commercial driver's license was justified where abstract of driver record history indicated that operator's New Jersey license was on suspended status for driving under the influence conviction when Pennsylvania license was issued.
  • Vanker v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, Not Reported in A.3d (2010)
    Petitioner appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, which granted the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing's (DOT) motion to quash Petitioner's appeal from a one-year suspension of his operating privilege pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa.C.S. § § 1547(b)(1). In the same proceeding, Petitioner sought to appeal the one-year disqualification of his commercial driver's license which arose from the same refusal to submit to chemical testing. Commonwealth Court affirmed.
  • Yonce v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, Not Reported in A.3d (2013)
    Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Bureau) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County which sustained the appeal of Licensee from the 60-day disqualification of his Commercial Driver's License (CDL). Commonwealth Court reversed.
STATUTES

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

  • No reference.

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions