Legal Opinion
State v. Tanner
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 1984No. 84-443PublishedCited by 116 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.
Appellant attacks the constitutionality of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) on three grounds. For the reasons set forth below we reject appellant’s contentions and affirm the court of appeals in upholding the constitutionality of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2).
R.C. 4511.19 states in pertinent part that: “(A) No person shall operate any vehicle * * * within this state if * * * (2) The person has a concentration of ten-hundreths of one per cent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood.” Before evaluating the averred constitutional infirmities of this language a preliminary consideration should be addressed.
We are…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by116 opinions
- Forte v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
- City of Defiance v. KretzOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. MertzNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- State v. CollierOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. HackerOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
111 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.