(A) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or when making a left turn under the rules governing such movements;
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(3) When driving upon a roadway divided into three or more marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon;
(4) When driving upon a roadway designated and posted with signs for one-way traffic;
(5) When otherwise directed by a police officer or traffic control device.
(B)(1) Upon all roadways any vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding at less than the prevailing and lawful speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable, except under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction;
(b) When preparing for a left turn;
(c) When the driver must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on the driver's intended route.
(2) Nothing in division (B)(1) of this section requires a driver of a slower vehicle to compromise the driver's safety to allow overtaking by a faster vehicle.
(C) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and providing for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven to the left of the center line of the roadway, except when authorized by official traffic control devices designating certain lanes to the left of the center of the roadway for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use the lanes, or except as permitted under division (A)(2) of this section.
This division shall not be construed as prohibiting the crossing of the center line in making a left turn into or from an alley, private road, or driveway.
(D) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.
If the offender commits the offense while distracted and the distracting activity is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense, the offender is subject to the additional fine established under section 4511.991 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6773, 170 N.E.3d 842.
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6773, 170 N.E.3d 842. · cites it 8ד{¶ 33} Certain permissive provisions of R.C. 4511.25—which requires vehicles to be driven on the right-hand side of the roadway in most circumstances— rely on the meaning of traffic-control devices to inform drivers when they can travel on other than the right-hand side of the…”
State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-2029, 101 N.E.3d 758. · cites it 19דRomero testified that he believed the driver of the vehicle had violated R.C. 4511.25 and Ohio Adm. Code 5537-2-09.”
State v. Martorana, 2023-Ohio-662. · cites it 8ד19(A)(1)(a), a first-degree misdemeanor, and driving left of center, a violation of R.C. 4511.25, a minor misdemeanor. She filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied in a judgment entered February 15, 2022.”
State v. McGlinch, 2019-Ohio-1380, 135 N.E.3d 406. · cites it 5ד25, entitled “Lanes of travel upon roadways,” provides, in part: (A) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: (1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the…”
State v. Carano, 2013-Ohio-1633. · cites it 7ד19(A)(2); and (3) lanes of travel/weaving, in violation of R.C. 4511.25. The first OVI count also contained an attendant specification based on Carano’s previously having been convicted of five or more OVI offenses in the last 20 years, in violation of R.”
State v. Leichty, 623 N.E.2d 48 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 6דThis case presents the narrow issue of whether R.C. 4511.25 and 5577.05 are to be read in pari materia.”
Oechsle v. Hart, 231 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 6דThe basic question raised by this case is whether an operator of a motor vehicle is excused from compliance with Sections 4511.25 and 4511.26, Revised Code, relating to driving on the right side of the road where on an otherwise dry highway an icy or wet spot causes her car to…”
State v. Thayer, 2012-Ohio-3301. · cites it 7ד19(A)(1)(d), and driving left of center, in violation R.C. 4511.25. 1 We note, however, that in his police report, Trooper Jones indicated only a “mild” odor, while his testimony indicated a “strong” odor.”
Peters v. B. & F. Transfer Co., 219 N.E.2d 27 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 5דUnder this set of facts, plaintiff clearly violated Sections 4511.25 and 4511.26, Revised Code, which impose a mandatory duty upon the operator of a vehicle to drive solely upon the right half of a roadway except under certain circumstances, none of which is applicable here.”
Norris v. Ohio Stand. Oil Co., 433 N.E.2d 615 (Ohio 1982). “§4511.25, the ‘left of center’ statute. * * * ” The issue before us here is whether defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted.”
State v. Rubsam, 2019-Ohio-2153. · cites it 11ד19(A)(1)(d), and failing to maintain his lane of travel in violation of R.C. 4511.25(A). Mr. Rubsam moved to suppress the evidence gained as a result of the stop, arguing that Trooper McCumbers did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed.”
State of Tennessee v. William Whitlow Davis, Jr., 484 S.W.3d 138 (Tenn. 2016). “24, 2013) (in light of statute requiring vehicles to be driven on right half of roadway, officer had constitutional basis to stop motorist after observing motorist’s van “cross over the double yellow line” (citing Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4511.25(A))); Commonwealth v.”
State v. Martorana, 2023-Ohio-662. “19(A)(1)(a), a first-degree misdemeanor, and driving left of center, a violation of R.C. 4511.25, a minor misdemeanor. She filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied in a judgment entered February 15, 2022.”
State v. McGlinch, 2019-Ohio-1380, 135 N.E.3d 406. “25, entitled “Lanes of travel upon roadways,” provides, in part: (A) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: (1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the…”
State of Tennessee v. William Whitlow Davis, Jr., 484 S.W.3d 138 (Tenn. 2016). “24, 2013) (in light of statute requiring vehicles to be driven on right half of roadway, officer had constitutional basis to stop motorist after observing motorist’s van “cross over the double yellow line” (citing Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 4511.25(A))); Commonwealth v.”
State v. Thayer, 2012-Ohio-3301. “19(A)(1)(d), and driving left of center, in violation R.C. 4511.25. 1 We note, however, that in his police report, Trooper Jones indicated only a “mild” odor, while his testimony indicated a “strong” odor.”
State v. Rubsam, 2019-Ohio-2153. “19(A)(1)(d), and failing to maintain his lane of travel in violation of R.C. 4511.25(A). Mr. Rubsam moved to suppress the evidence gained as a result of the stop, arguing that Trooper McCumbers did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.25(A)(1): 5 cases
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6773, 170 N.E.3d 842. “{¶ 33} Certain permissive provisions of R.C. 4511.25—which requires vehicles to be driven on the right-hand side of the roadway in most circumstances— rely on the meaning of traffic-control devices to inform drivers when they can travel on other than the right-hand side of the…”
State v. Martorana, 2023-Ohio-662. “19(A)(1)(a), a first-degree misdemeanor, and driving left of center, a violation of R.C. 4511.25, a minor misdemeanor. She filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied in a judgment entered February 15, 2022.”
State v. Rubsam, 2019-Ohio-2153. “19(A)(1)(d), and failing to maintain his lane of travel in violation of R.C. 4511.25(A). Mr. Rubsam moved to suppress the evidence gained as a result of the stop, arguing that Trooper McCumbers did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed.”
State v. Carano, 2013-Ohio-1633. “19(A)(2); and (3) lanes of travel/weaving, in violation of R.C. 4511.25. The first OVI count also contained an attendant specification based on Carano’s previously having been convicted of five or more OVI offenses in the last 20 years, in violation of R.”
State v. Rubsam, 2019-Ohio-2153. “19(A)(1)(d), and failing to maintain his lane of travel in violation of R.C. 4511.25(A). Mr. Rubsam moved to suppress the evidence gained as a result of the stop, arguing that Trooper McCumbers did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed.”
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6773, 170 N.E.3d 842. “{¶ 33} Certain permissive provisions of R.C. 4511.25—which requires vehicles to be driven on the right-hand side of the roadway in most circumstances— rely on the meaning of traffic-control devices to inform drivers when they can travel on other than the right-hand side of the…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.25(B): 4 cases
State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-2029, 101 N.E.3d 758. “Romero testified that he believed the driver of the vehicle had violated R.C. 4511.25 and Ohio Adm. Code 5537-2-09.”
State v. Huth, 727 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1999).
State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-2029, 101 N.E.3d 758. “Romero testified that he believed the driver of the vehicle had violated R.C. 4511.25 and Ohio Adm. Code 5537-2-09.”
State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-2029, 101 N.E.3d 758. “Romero testified that he believed the driver of the vehicle had violated R.C. 4511.25 and Ohio Adm. Code 5537-2-09.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.25(C): 4 cases
State v. Turner (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6773, 170 N.E.3d 842. “{¶ 33} Certain permissive provisions of R.C. 4511.25—which requires vehicles to be driven on the right-hand side of the roadway in most circumstances— rely on the meaning of traffic-control devices to inform drivers when they can travel on other than the right-hand side of the…”
State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-2029, 101 N.E.3d 758. “Romero testified that he believed the driver of the vehicle had violated R.C. 4511.25 and Ohio Adm. Code 5537-2-09.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.