Commonwealth v. Cornetti

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Cornetti

96 A.2d 378, 373 Pa. 407, 1953 Pa. LEXIS 320

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 22, 1953

DocketAppeal, 62

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 96 A.2d 378 (Commonwealth v. Cornetti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Cornetti, 96 A.2d 378, 373 Pa. 407, 1953 Pa. LEXIS 320 (Pa. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator’s license for operating a motor vehicle. The offense charged was speed on a public highway at seventy miles per hour when the maximum lawful speed was fifty miles per hour.

What we said in Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388, 96 A. 2d 370, relating to legal principles and construction of The Vehicle Code, has similar application to the facts in the present case.

Charles Cornetti, Jr., defendant, was charged by a state policeman with traveling on a public highway on March 22, 1952, after dark, at a speed of seventy miles per hour. The road was dry and traffic moderate. Such speed was a violation of The Vehicle Code. Defendant did not deny the violation, and the only reason given by him for such violation was, “I was late for an appointment.” He was twenty years of age, unmarried, and living home with his father and mother. He had been driving for four years; had been fined several times for “going through a stop sign”; and had been involved in an accident, although no charge was made against him. The order of suspension was rescinded solely on the ground of economic hardship. In the order the court said: “. . . it appearing to the Court that the petitioner’s violation did not endanger the life or property of any person; and it further appearing to the Court that the petitioner would be unable to continue in his employment without a driver’s license which would result in a great and undue hardship not justified by the facts of this case, the prayer -of said petition is granted, and the Order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending the li *409 cense of Charles Cornetti, Jr. is hereby set aside and full driving privileges are hereby restored to the said Charles Cornetti, Jr.”

Such an order under the circumstances of this case constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion.

The order is reversed at the cost of the appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator’s license for operating a motor vehicle. The offense charged was speed on a public highway at seventy miles per hour when the maximum lawful speed was fifty miles per hour.

What we said in Commonwealth v. Emerick, 373 Pa. 388, 96 A. 2d 370, relating to legal principles and construction of The Vehicle Code, has similar application to the facts in the present case.

Charles Cornetti, Jr., defendant, was charged by a state policeman with traveling on a public highway on March 22, 1952, after dark, at a speed of seventy miles per hour. The road was dry and traffic moderate. Such speed was a violation of The Vehicle Code. Defendant did not deny the violation, and the only reason given by him for such violation was, “I was late for an appointment.” He was twenty years of age, unmarried, and living home with his father and mother. He had been driving for four years; had been fined several times for “going through a stop sign”; and had been involved in an accident, although no charge was made against him. The order of suspension was rescinded solely on the ground of economic hardship. In the order the court said: “. . . it appearing to the Court that the petitioner’s violation did not endanger the life or property of any person; and it further appearing to the Court that the petitioner would be unable to continue in his employment without a driver’s license which would result in a great and undue hardship not justified by the facts of this case, the prayer -of said petition is granted, and the Order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending the li *409 cense of Charles Cornetti, Jr. is hereby set aside and full driving privileges are hereby restored to the said Charles Cornetti, Jr.”

Such an order under the circumstances of this case constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion.

The order is reversed at the cost of the appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.2d 378, 373 Pa. 407, 1953 Pa. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-cornetti-pa-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack