Legal Opinion

State v. Leichty

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1993No. 92-1045PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

This case presents the narrow issue of whether R.C. 4511.25 and 5577.05 are to be read in pari materia. We hold that they are.

R.C. 5577.05 states as follows:

“No vehicle shall be operated upon' the public highways, streets, bridges, and culverts within the state, whose dimensions exceed those specified in this section.
“ * * * This section does not apply to * * * farm machinery and equipment. ‡ ‡ »

The statute clearly creates an exception that allows Leichty to operate his farm machinery on state highways even though the equipment may exceed maximum width, length and height requirements of R.C.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Austin v. Miami Valley HospitalOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Maple Heights Teachers Ass'n v. Maple Heights Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State v. HostetlerOhio Court of Appeals · 1987

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Leonard v. Delphia Consulting, 06ap-874 (4-19-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Peters v. City of JacksonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. BST Ohio Corp. v. WolgangOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  5. In Re SendersOhio Court of Appeals · 1996

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API