Pfeiffer v. Commonwealth

5 Citing cases

  1. Scott v. Com., Bureau of Driver Licensing

    567 Pa. 631 (Pa. 2002)   Cited 20 times

    See Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Tarnopolski, 626 A.2d 138, 140 (Pa. 1993) ("In a license suspension case, the only issues are whether the licensee was in fact convicted, and whether [PennDOT] has acted in accordance with applicable law. [PennDOT] carries the burden to produce a record of the conviction that supports the suspension"); Pfeiffer v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 539 A.2d 4, 5 (Pa.Commw. 1988) (once PennDOT produces evidence of a conviction, the burden of proceeding shifts to the licensee to rebut or challenge PennDOT's proof); see also Harmon v. Mifflin County School Dist., 713 A.2d 620, 624 (Pa. 1998) ("failure to testify to facts within one's presumed knowledge permits an inference that can erase the equivocal nature of other evidence relating to a disputed fact"); Beers v. Muth, 151 A.2d 465, 466 (Pa. 1959) (party's failure to testify in a civil proceeding can give rise to an inference of fact that the party's testimony would have been adverse or unfavorable to him). Given that Appellants were not convicted of a permitting offense, the permitting provisions of N.J.S.A. § 39:4-50(a) are not at issue in this case.

  2. Scott v. Com

    730 A.2d 539 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 11 times

    . . . Once DOT produced these records, the burden of production then shifted to Licensee to rebut any inferences drawn from these records. Pfeiffer v. Department of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 114 Pa. Commw. 390, 539 A.2d 4, 5 (Pa.Commw. 1988). Moreover, it is well settled that a party's failure to testify in a civil proceeding can give rise to an inference of fact that the party's testimony would have been adverse or unfavorable to him.

  3. Savini v. Com., Dept. of Transp

    624 A.2d 696 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    The licensee and his counsel shall be jointly and severally liable to the Department for the award. Pfeiffer v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 114 Pa. Commw. 390, 539 A.2d 4, modified, Pa.Commonwealth Ct., 549 A.2d 626 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the order suspending the licensee's operating privilege, grant the request that counsel fees and costs be imposed, and remand this case to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining the amount to be paid.

  4. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Kappas

    621 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    We agree. Statements made by a party's counsel do not constitute evidence. See Pfeiffer v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 114 Pa. Commw. 390, 539 A.2d 4, modified, 549 A.2d 626 (1988). Finally, the Department argues that the trial court's finding that no determination had been made by the criminal court judge is not supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court erred in sustaining the licensee's appeal. As indicated above, statements by the licensee's counsel cannot be the foundation for findings by the trial court.

  5. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Elser

    152 Pa. Commw. 523 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    Not only is the use of the preliminary injunction insufficient for this reason, it was never offered or admitted into evidence. As such, it is not evidence upon which the trial court may rely. Cf. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. McCrea, Pa.Commonwealth Ct., 526 A.2d 474, aff'd on rehearing, 110 Pa. Commw. 261, 532 A.2d 72 (1987); Pfeiffer v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 114 Pa. Commw. 390, 539 A.2d 4, modified, Pa.Commonwealth Ct., 549 A.2d 626 (1988). Because reliance on the preliminary injunction hearing transcript alone was improper, there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether the Department substantially interfered with permanent access to the Elsers' property.