Fay License

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas

Fay License

70 Pa. D. & C.2d 241, 1975 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 317

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County

DecidedOctober 9, 1975

Docketno. 5733 of 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 70 Pa. D. & C.2d 241 (Fay License) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fay License, 70 Pa. D. & C.2d 241, 1975 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 317 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

CATANIA, P. J.,

The instant case arises out of the court’s sustaining an appeal from a one month suspension of a junior operator’s license pursuant to section 604.1(a) and (d) of The Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 PS §604.1(a)(d).

The facts are as follows: Defendant was convicted of violating section 1002(b)(4) of The Vehicle Code, 75P.S. § 1002(b)(4), after defendant had been clocked doing 55 miles per hour in a 40-miles-per-hour zone in Newtown Township. No other violation of The Vehicle Code was involved. At the time of the hearing, it was conceded by the Commonwealth that under the factual situation at bar it was extremely doubtful that an adult operator would have had his license suspended for the same offense as that committed by the junior operator.

While this court is cognizant of the secretary’s authority to suspend the operating privileges of a junior operator at his discretion upon conviction of any violation of The Vehicle Code, we cannot find that such a suspension was warranted under the facts as presented at bar. We believe that such a suspension, based solely upon defendant’s status as a juvenile, was unwarranted and it represented as abuse of discretion on the part of the secretary.

Accordingly, we sustain the appeal of defendant in this regard.

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

CATANIA, P. J.,

The instant case arises out of the court’s sustaining an appeal from a one month suspension of a junior operator’s license pursuant to section 604.1(a) and (d) of The Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 PS §604.1(a)(d).

The facts are as follows: Defendant was convicted of violating section 1002(b)(4) of The Vehicle Code, 75P.S. § 1002(b)(4), after defendant had been clocked doing 55 miles per hour in a 40-miles-per-hour zone in Newtown Township. No other violation of The Vehicle Code was involved. At the time of the hearing, it was conceded by the Commonwealth that under the factual situation at bar it was extremely doubtful that an adult operator would have had his license suspended for the same offense as that committed by the junior operator.

While this court is cognizant of the secretary’s authority to suspend the operating privileges of a junior operator at his discretion upon conviction of any violation of The Vehicle Code, we cannot find that such a suspension was warranted under the facts as presented at bar. We believe that such a suspension, based solely upon defendant’s status as a juvenile, was unwarranted and it represented as abuse of discretion on the part of the secretary.

Accordingly, we sustain the appeal of defendant in this regard.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Pa. D. & C.2d 241, 1975 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fay-license-pactcompldelawa-1975.