(A) Upon any highway outside a business or residence district, no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main traveled part of the highway if it is practicable to stop, park, or so leave such vehicle off the paved or main traveled part of said highway. In every event a clear and unobstructed portion of the highway opposite such standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles, and a clear view of such stopped vehicle shall be available from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction upon such highway.
This section does not apply to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled while on the paved or improved or main traveled portion of a highway in such manner and to such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving the disabled vehicle in such position.
(B) 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc., 506 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1987).
Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc., 506 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 5ד5 II Appellee also maintains that Hesketh violated R.C. 4511.66, 6 and was therefore negligent.”
Piper v. McMillan, 730 N.E.2d 481 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8דAppellee Fludd’s Negligence Appellant argues that Fludd was negligent because she violated R.C. 4511.66. R.C. 4511.66 provides: “Upon any highway outside a business or residence district no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended,…”
State v. Haas, 2012 Ohio 2362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5דOn appeal, Haas argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress, claiming that the police officer lacked the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion of a violation of R.C. 4511.66, prohibition of parking on a state highway.”
Pursley v. Est. of Messman, 2020 Ohio 2985 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4דTherefore, there is no issue of comparative fault to be submitted to a 13 This fact distinguishes the issues in this appeal from a line of cases that consider vehicles unlawfully parked or stopped in the roadway in violation of R.”
State v. Koss, 2014 Ohio 5042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3ד19(A)(1)(a), and parking on a highway, in violation of R.C. 4511.66. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.”
Tritt v. Judd's Moving & Storage, Inc., 574 N.E.2d 1178 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2דSpecifically, the trial court instructed the jury that, if it found that defendant had violated R.C. 4511.66, 4513.03 or 4513.10 or Ohio Adm.”
State v. Cox, 2011 Ohio 1316 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5ד19 and parking on a highway in violation of R.C. 4511.66. {¶2} On June 7, 2010, appellant filed a motion to suppress, claiming an illegal stop.”
Leach v. Newport Yellow Cab, Inc., 628 F. Supp. 293 (S.D. Ohio 1985). · cites it 2דThe Plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint that Ohio Revised Code §§ 4511.66, 4513.-03, 4513.05 and 49 C.F.”
State v. Shrewsbury, 2014 Ohio 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Cox, 5th Dist. Knox No. 10-CA-0016, 2011-Ohio-1316, ¶ 22-23 (affirming denial of motion to suppress evidence seized in an investigatory stop based on trooper’s false impression of violation of R.”
Hacker v. Roddy, 2013 Ohio 5085 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3ד{¶24} In support of their argument on appeal, the appellants argue that Marcia parked her vehicle on the bridge in violation of R.C. 4511.66(A), which states: (A) Upon any highway outside a business or residence district, no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any…”
Campbell v. Daniels Motor Freight, Inc., 221 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 4דIn other words, those statutes have been complied with as well as has Section 4511.66, Revised Code, prohibiting parking “upon the paved or main traveled part of the highway,” etc.”
Pfirsch v. Hall-Omar Baking Co., 216 N.E.2d 626 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 8ד’ ’ This was apparently done because the court considered that Section 4511.66, Eevised Code, had some bearing or application to the facts in the case at bar.”
Hacker v. Roddy, 2013 Ohio 5085 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶24} In support of their argument on appeal, the appellants argue that Marcia parked her vehicle on the bridge in violation of R.C. 4511.66(A), which states: (A) Upon any highway outside a business or residence district, no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any…”
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.