Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 9/7/2012

Commonwealth v. Dixon

Citations

53 A.3d 839
2012 Pa. Super. 188
2012 WL 3871583
2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2498

How courts have described this case

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

“The legislature clearly intended to segregate children from drugs where they learn and play and, to promote that policy, it created drug-free zones[.]”
Superior Court “is without authority to insert a word into a statutory provision where the legislature has failed to supply it”
in concluding that a daycare does not constitute a school for purposes of Section 6317, noting that a court has no authority to insert words in the statute not provided by General Assembly
“Where certain things are designated in a statute, all omissions should be understood as exclusions,” as the “General Assembly [is] more than capable of drafting [the statute to include what it wishes to include].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowes, Files, McEwen, Musmanno

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.