Court Opinion

ID: 9763263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:39:50.645226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:40.280029
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice CAPPY
concurring.
I join the instant Majority Opinion despite my continued belief that this Court is required to adhere to the rules of statutory construction when interpreting Article III of the Drivers License Compact of 1961, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1581.1 Specifically, the rules of statutory construction provide that when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the statute is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). In my view, the Majority’s analysis disregards this principle. However, as *279was the case in Harrington v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 563 Pa. 565, 763 A.2d 386, 394 (2000) (Cappy, J., concurring), I recognize that the rationale adopted by the Majority Opinion in McCajferty, namely that certain reporting requirements of Article III of the Driver’s License Compact need not be strictly complied with in order to meet the requisites of due process, is stare decisis and compels my joinder in this appeal.

. See Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. McCafferty, 563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155, 1165 (2000) (Cappy, J., concurring and dissent-