Legal Opinion

Erdman v. Mestrovich

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1951No. 32115PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaRt, J.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court on the sole ground that it refused to charge the jury upon the assured-clear-dis-' tance-ahead rule set forth in Section 6307-21, General Code.

Apparently the Court of Appeals took the view that if there was any evidence that the defendant entered the intersection on the red light or was otherwise proceeding in an unlawful manner, the assured-clear-dis*90tance rule would apply and should have been covered by the charge.

In the course of its opinion the Court of Appeals said:

“Although plaintiff became confused on the witness stand, his…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smiley v. Arrow Spring Bed Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Glasco v. MendelmanOhio Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Schade v. Carnegie Body Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Shinaver v. SzymanskiOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Ziegler v. Wendel Poultry Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Ament v. Reassure America Life InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
  5. Vavrina v. GreczanikOhio Court of Appeals · 1974

35 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