Commonwealth v. Frost

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing Grady still applied and limiting holding specifically to ARD cases
• “Defendants who accept ARD for drunk driving are now told that an ARD will be considered a conviction for sentencing purposes in the event of an arrest for drunk driving within the next seven years.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Becker
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-08-10· cited 45×
• Commonwealth v. Reeb
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-06-04· cited 27×
• Commonwealth v. Scheinert
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-12-11· cited 26×
• Commonwealth v. Tustin
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-11-15· cited 19×
• Commonwealth v. Godsey
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-04-26· cited 15×
• Commonwealth v. Waters
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-03-03· cited 11×
• Commonwealth v. Potts
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-04-15· cited 11×
• Commonwealth v. Wagner
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-04-14· cited 10×
• Scheinert v. Henderson
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1992-09-14· cited 1×
• Commonwealth v. Stewart
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-05-16· cited 1×

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Grady
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-12-28· cited 32×
• Bureau of Traffic Safety v. McDevitt
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-03-18· cited 31×