Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

State v. Kincaid

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 28, 1992No. 91 CA 18Published

1Concurring in the judgmentPeter B. Abele, Judge

I concur in the judgment and opinion. I agree that appellant’s conduct in the instant case regarding the alleged operation of the vehicle does not fall within the standard established by the Ohio Supreme Court. In defining the word “operate,” the court wrote in State v. McGlone (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 122, 570 N.E.2d 1115, syllabus, as follows:

“An intoxicated person who is in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle parked on private or public property with the key in the ignition is operating the vehicle in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1).”

As the majority opinion points out, in the case sub judice…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Smith v. KlemOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. City of Cincinnati v. KelleyOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  5. State v. McGloneOhio Supreme Court · 1991

4 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