Schlag v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

How courts have described this case

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

• officer’s reasonable belief was supported by information received from a complainant who followed a vehicle involved in a hit-and-run accident, confronted the driver, and reported signs of intoxication
• “[T]he test is whether the officer’s conclusion was reasonable as a matter of law, not whether [the trial court] might have concluded otherwise had [it] stood in the officer’s shoes.”
• “Once the trial court accepts as credible an officer’s testimony regarding [his] observations of the licensee, [the trial court] cannot substitute its judgment as to what inferences should be drawn from the circumstances.”
• where no notation on the trial court docket indicates that appellant was served with a copy of the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order, appellant’s failure to file a timely concise statement will not result in waiver
• where docket does not reflect that prothonotary provided notice of entry of a Rule 1925(b) order to appellant as required under Pa. R.C.P. No. 236 (b), this Court would not conclude appellant’s issues were waived for failure to file a Statement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).