Legal Opinion

City of Rochester v. Lindner

Rochester City Court

Decided March 25, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilder, J.

Is the defendant, a game protector of the Department of Conservation of the State, subject to the restrictions of a speed ordinance of the city of Rochester while he is driving his automobile to investigate a complaint that someone is engaged in illegal trapping? This question was raised by the defendant who, I find from the evidence, was exceeding the rate of speed prescribed by the ordinance.

The question is not complicated by any claim of reckless or other disregard of the safety of others. The speed, the location and absence of traffic negative any thought that the car was an actual menace…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Edberg v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  2. State v. GorhamWashington Supreme Court · 1920
  3. People v. Mahoney, New York County Courts1909

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kenler v. MurtaghNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  2. City of Rochester v. TuttyRochester City Court · 1938
  3. Smith v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API