From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Dept. of Transportation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 19, 1972
286 A.2d 492 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1972)

Opinion

January 19, 1972.

Motor vehicles — Suspension of motor vehicle operator's license — The Vehicle Code, Act 1959, April 29, P. L. 58 — Timeliness of appeal — Extension of time to appeal — Motion to quash.

1. A motion to quash an appeal from the suspension of a motor vehicle operator's license, which appeal was not filed in a court of common pleas within thirty days of suspension as required by The Vehicle Code, Act 1959, April 29, P. L. 58, should be granted, since no court has the power to extend the time for appeal as an act of mere indulgence. [309]

Submitted on briefs January 7, 1972, to Judges KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 256 C.D. 1971, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, in case of Ronald J. Brown v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, No. SA-34 of 1971.

Motor vehicle operator's license suspended by Secretary of Transportation. Licensee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Appeal sustained. MARTIN, J. Commonwealth appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed and order of suspension reinstated.

John K. Kraybill, with him Anthony J. Maiorana, Assistant Attorney General, Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.


Section 620 of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 620, confers upon any person whose operator's license has been suspended the right to file a petition, within 30 days thereafter, for a hearing in the court of common pleas. The Secretary of the Department of Transportation suspended the operator's license of Ronald J. Brown on November 30, 1970. Not until January 14, 1971, did Ronald J. Brown file his petition for a hearing with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Although the tardy filing was apparent by the petition, the court granted a hearing de novo. The Commonwealth appeared below and unsuccessfully moved to quash the appeal as untimely. The court below entered into a hearing and sustained the appeal. This was error. No court has power to extend the time for appeal as an act of mere indulgence. City of Pittsburgh, et al. v. Public Utility Commission, et al., 3 Pa. Commw. 546, 284 A.2d 808 (1971); Department of Highways v. Public Utility Commission, 189 Pa. Super. 111, 149 A.2d 552 (1959).

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is reversed, and the order of the Secretary of Revenue is reinstated. Reinstated suspension shall be issued within thirty (30) days.


Summaries of

Brown v. Dept. of Transportation

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 19, 1972
286 A.2d 492 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1972)
Case details for

Brown v. Dept. of Transportation

Case Details

Full title:Brown v. Department of Transportation

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 19, 1972

Citations

286 A.2d 492 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1972)
286 A.2d 492

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Kready

Hosek further stated that by virtue of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.…

Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Forte

Both positions find support among the lower court cases, but no appellate court has been faced with precisely…