Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 3/10/1987

Commonwealth v. Church

Citations

522 A.2d 30
513 Pa. 534
1987 Pa. LEXIS 632

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“[T]he amount of a fíne need not be limited to the cost incurred by the Commonwealth for each violation.”
$13,000 fine not excessive where statutory scheme penalized overweight vehicles on sliding scale without regard for ability to pay or cost to Commonwealth of noncompliance
“[T]he primary purpose of a fine or a penalty is twofold; to punish violators and to deter future or continued violations[.]”
“The legislative power clearly includes the power to enact criminal laws; no specific statement that the promulgation of criminal laws is permitted is required.”
“[T]he primary purpose of a fine or a penalty is twofold; to punish violators and to deter future or continued violations[.]”
“It is recognized that the legislature has the exclusive power to pronounce which acts are crimes, to define crimes, and to fix the punishment for all crimes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Church

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.