Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Westlake v. Kaplysh

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 27, 1997No. 70872Published

1DissentJames M. Porter, Presiding Judge

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the reason that I find that the officer’s stopped vehicle did not constitute “oncoming traffic” as set forth in Westlake Ordinance 337.14.

Westlake Ordinance 337.14 states as follows:

“337.14 USE OF HEADLIGHT BEAMS
“Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated on a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto during the times specified in Section 337.02, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons, vehicles and substantial objects at a safe distance in advance…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pennington v. GundlerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. City of Vermilion v. StevensonOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. State v. WoodsOhio Court of Appeals · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API