Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1963–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Prunty v. Vandenberggreen2 sentences1963See Prunty v. Vcmdenberg, 257 Wis., 469 , 44 N. W. (2d), 246 . 1963See Prunty v. Vcmdenberg, 257 Wis., 469 , 44 N. W. (2d), 246 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kohn v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
neutral
2 sentences1967F. Goodrich Co., 139 Ohio St. 141 , reads: “It is prejudicial error for the trial court, in an action for wrongful death alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, to instruct the jury at plaintiff’s request that a violation of * * * [Section 4511.25, Revised Code], which requires that motor vehicles shall keep to the right side of the center line of the highway, is negligence per se, without explaining to the jury in some instruction or in the general charge what would or would not constitute a violation of the statute.” In the opinion, at page 147, Judge Williams states: “# * # a 1966F. Goodrich Co.., 38 N. E. 2d 592 , 139 Ohio St. 141 . ” It appears from the majority opinion’s own conclusion that defendant’s driver was negligent and that he could have avoided the tragedy had he exercised reasonable care. | 2 | 1966–1967 |
Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co.
green
2 sentences2018In Bush , the Court held: "A legal excuse, precluding liability for injuries resulting from the failure to comply with the statutory requirements respecting the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways, must be something that would make it impossible to comply with the statute, something over which the driver has no control, an emergency not of the driver's making causing failure to obey the statute, or an excuse or exception specifically provided in the statute itself." Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co. , 146 Ohio St. 657 , 664-65, 67 N.E.2d 851 (1946) (and stating the defendant cannot e 2018In Bush , the Court held: "A legal excuse, precluding liability for injuries resulting from the failure to comply with the statutory requirements respecting the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways, must be something that would make it impossible to comply with the statute, something over which the driver has no control, an emergency not of the driver's making causing failure to obey the statute, or an excuse or exception specifically provided in the statute itself." Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co. , 146 Ohio St. 657 , 664-65, 67 N.E.2d 851 (1946) (and stating the defendant cannot e | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Oechsle v. Hart
green
2 sentences2018In Bush , the Court held: "A legal excuse, precluding liability for injuries resulting from the failure to comply with the statutory requirements respecting the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways, must be something that would make it impossible to comply with the statute, something over which the driver has no control, an emergency not of the driver's making causing failure to obey the statute, or an excuse or exception specifically provided in the statute itself." Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co. , 146 Ohio St. 657 , 664-65, 67 N.E.2d 851 (1946) (and stating the defendant cannot e 2018In Bush , the Court held: "A legal excuse, precluding liability for injuries resulting from the failure to comply with the statutory requirements respecting the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways, must be something that would make it impossible to comply with the statute, something over which the driver has no control, an emergency not of the driver's making causing failure to obey the statute, or an excuse or exception specifically provided in the statute itself." Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co. , 146 Ohio St. 657 , 664-65, 67 N.E.2d 851 (1946) (and stating the defendant cannot e | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Underwriters at Lloyd's Under Policy No. Lho 10497 v. Peerless Storage Co.
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Francis v. Bieber
green
2 sentences1987Francis v. Bieber (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 65 , 39 O.O. 2d 52, 225 N.E. 2d 251 . 1987Francis v. Bieber (1967), 10 Ohio St. 2d 65 , 39 O.O. 2d 52, 225 N.E. 2d 251 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Mann v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1985In Mann v. Lewis (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 191 [ 51 O.O.2d 274 ], the Supreme Court held that R.C. 4511.30(C) was intended, and will be construed as intending, to make it unlawful for a motor vehicle to be to the left of the center of the roadway when approaching within one hundred feet of, or traversing, an intersection. 1985In Mann v. Lewis (1970), 22 Ohio St. 2d 191 [ 51 O.O.2d 274 ], the Supreme Court held that R.C. 4511.30(C) was intended, and will be construed as intending, to make it unlawful for a motor vehicle to be to the left of the center of the roadway when approaching within one hundred feet of, or traversing, an intersection. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Satterthwaite v. Morgan
green
1 sentence1972In that case, involving an emergency stop due to a blown fuse extinguishing all lights in defendant’s truck which was on the west edge of the paved portion of the highway about 300 feet south of the crest of a hill on a highway, the court held, in paragraph 2 of its syllabus: “A legal excuse, precluding liability for injuries resulting from negligence per se in the failure to comply with a safety legislative enactment directing the manner of the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways, must be something which makes it impossible to comply with the safety legislative enactment, some | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Kormos v. Cleveland Retail Credit Men's Co.
green
1 sentence1967F. Goodrich Co., 139 Ohio St. 141 , reads: “It is prejudicial error for the trial court, in an action for wrongful death alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, to instruct the jury at plaintiff’s request that a violation of * * * [Section 4511.25, Revised Code], which requires that motor vehicles shall keep to the right side of the center line of the highway, is negligence per se, without explaining to the jury in some instruction or in the general charge what would or would not constitute a violation of the statute.” In the opinion, at page 147, Judge Williams states: “# * # a | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Smiley v. Arrow Spring Bed Co.
green
1 sentence1967F. Goodrich Co., 139 Ohio St. 141 , reads: “It is prejudicial error for the trial court, in an action for wrongful death alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, to instruct the jury at plaintiff’s request that a violation of * * * [Section 4511.25, Revised Code], which requires that motor vehicles shall keep to the right side of the center line of the highway, is negligence per se, without explaining to the jury in some instruction or in the general charge what would or would not constitute a violation of the statute.” In the opinion, at page 147, Judge Williams states: “# * # a | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Bird v. Hart
green
1 sentence1967F. Goodrich Co., 139 Ohio St. 141 , reads: “It is prejudicial error for the trial court, in an action for wrongful death alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, to instruct the jury at plaintiff’s request that a violation of * * * [Section 4511.25, Revised Code], which requires that motor vehicles shall keep to the right side of the center line of the highway, is negligence per se, without explaining to the jury in some instruction or in the general charge what would or would not constitute a violation of the statute.” In the opinion, at page 147, Judge Williams states: “# * # a | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.