Harbeson v. Jackson Land Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant could not be subject to enhanced criminal penalties for refusing officer's request for blood test under Implied Consent Law
• holding that, pursuant to Birchfield, defendant who refuses to submit to warrantless blood draw cannot be subject to enhanced penalties under 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3803-3804; affirming appellant’s DUI conviction but vacating and remanding for resentencing
• providing that the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence
• stating that a police officer’s “testimony is sufficient to prove the elements of - 10 - J-S06039-18 DUI-general impairment.”
• holding that “pursuant to Birchfield, in the absence of a warrant or exigent circumstances justifying a search, a defendant who refuses to provide a blood sample when requested by police is not subject to the enhanced penalties provided in 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3803-3804.”
• holding that “pursuant to Birchfield, in the absence of a warrant or exigent 6 We note that sentencing issues relating to a court’s statutory authority to impose a sentence implicate the legality of sentence. Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332, 342 (Pa. 2011

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).