Legal Opinion

Pugh v. Akron-Chicago Transportation Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1940No. 28113PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.

The defendant’s assignments of error are numerous. However, a study of the record and the opinion of the Court of Appeals discloses a complete answer to each complaint.

The only question requiring comment -by this court is that relating to Section 6310-27, General Code, which reads as follows:

“No vehicle shall stop on any road-or highway, except with front and rear right wheels within one foot of the right hand side of the improved portion of the road, nor in any such way as to obstruct a free passage of the road; provided that nothing in this section shall be held to apply whenever a driver…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schell v. DuBoisOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Kormos v. Cleveland Retail Credit Men's Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Skinner v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Gumley, Admr. v. CowmanOhio Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Price v. McCoy Sales & Service, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
  2. D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Margaret H. Slingland, United States of America v. D. C. Transit System, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1959
  3. Pieper Ex Rel. Pieper v. HarmeyerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
  4. Sheridan v. WerkheiserOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
  5. Zawlocki v. HoutzOhio Court of Appeals · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API