Case Name: John K. WHALEN, Respondent v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2010-12-22
Citations: 10 A.3d 900
Docket Number: 
Parties: John K. WHALEN, Respondent v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 10
Pages: 900–901

Head Matter:
John K. WHALEN, Respondent v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Dec. 22, 2010.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of December 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
Does [Licensee's] acceptance of ARD for his second DUI charge establish a DUI violation and thereby trigger the statutory ignition-interlock requirement where: the general assembly and the courts have consistently treated the acceptance of ARD for a DUI charge as an adjudication mandating the imposition of suspensions or revocations, even where the language of the statute required conviction; and the statute at issue here only requires a violation and suspension in order to require installation of an ignition interlock as a condition of license restoration?