Legal Opinion

Pallini v. Dankowski

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1969No. 68-275PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

The questions now before us are whether the requested special instruction was a correct statement of law, and, if so, whether the instant record contains evidence warranting a special instruction concerning defendant’s possible violation of Section 4511.21 of the Revised Code, the assured clear distance statute. See Lackner v. Burns (1964), 175 Ohio St. 469, Bradley v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc. (1950), 154 Ohio St. 154, Washington Fidelity Nat. Ins. Co. v. Herbert (1932), 125 Ohio St. 591. Cf. Smith v. Flesher (1967), 12 Ohio St. 2d 107.

The pertinent portion of the instruction reads as…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Smith v. FlesherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Smiley v. Arrow Spring Bed Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Bradley v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Erdman v. MestrovichOhio Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Sheen v. KubiacOhio Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Hardiman v. Zep Manufacturing Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Viox v. WeinbergOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Roetenberger v. Christ HospitalOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Pangle v. JoyceOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Collins v. Storer Communications, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989

19 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