Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. LOUIS FRANK MULLER (04/09/80)

decided: April 9, 1980.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, APPELLANT
v.
LOUIS FRANK MULLER, JR., APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Louis Frank Muller, Jr., No. 1305 of 1978.

COUNSEL

Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellant.

B. Earnest Long, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. President Judge Bowman did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Mencer

[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 416]

The Commonwealth appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County sustaining

[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 417]

    the appeal of Louis Frank Muller, Jr. (Muller) from a revocation of his motor vehicle operator's license. Following Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Passerella, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 352, 401 A.2d 1 (1979), we reverse, there being a violation of The Vehicle Code (Code)*fn1 and an administrative delay which is immaterial as to mitigation.

On January 20, 1977, Muller was convicted of a charge of failing to stop at the scene of an accident. On July 14, 1977, the Clerk of Courts of the County of Westmoreland certified Muller's conviction to the Bureau of Traffic Safety (Bureau). On February 2, 1978, the Bureau revoked Muller's motor vehicle operating privilege for a period of one year, effective February 23, 1978.

Muller appealed the revocation to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County. On October 25, 1978, that court filed an order sustaining the appeal which was supported by an opinion setting forth that the reason for entering the order was that "[i]t appears to this Court that the Petitioner [Muller] did not receive his Notice of Revocation until some eleven (11) months after his initial conviction" and "it clearly appears that eleven (11) months is an unreasonable period of time."*fn2

In Passerella, we stated:

That court held that the order of revocation by the Secretary should be reversed because he had failed to revoke the operating privileges 'forthwith' ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.