Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Arutanoff v. Metropolitan Government

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1969PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Humphreys

Appellant Anately A. Arutanoff was found guilty of violating Metropolitan Ordinance No. 67-255, sec. 16, in that he operated a motorcycle in Metropolitan Nashville without a protective helmet. He has appealed on the ground the ordinance is unconstitutional.

The State Statute and the Metropolitan Ordinance based thereon are as follows:

“T.C.A. sec. 59-934. (formerly sec. 59-944) “Crash helmet required, for driver and passenger. — The driver of a motorcycle or motor driven cycle and any passenger thereon shall be required to wear a crash helmet of a type approved by the commissioner of safety.”
“Me…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Motlow v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Stratton v. MorrisTennessee Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Everhardt v. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1968
  4. Bisenius v. KarnsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Ex Parte SmithCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1969

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. People v. KohrigIllinois Supreme Court · 1986
  2. City of Memphis v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union, Local 1288Tennessee Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State v. HartogSupreme Court of Iowa · 1989
  4. Buhl v. HanniganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  5. Draper v. Great American Insurance CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1970

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API