Andrews v. Turner
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, J.
R. C. 4511.191, the implied-consent statute, is “a legislative response to the mischief of drunken drivers.” State v. Hurbean (1970), 23 Ohio App. 2d 119, 131. The general purpose of the statute 3 is “the protection of the public * * * and to give effect to that general purpose there is prescribed separate from, independent of, and cumulative to criminal prosecution a clear remedy of suspending *36the licenses, of those drivers who.-refuse to,, take a sobriety test. We.construe the statute to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.” State v. Hurbean, supra, at pages 131-132.
The sole issue…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hoban v. RiceOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- State v. StarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Newman v. StinsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1972
- State v. HurbeanOhio Court of Appeals · 1970
- Application of KunnemanCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert BernardSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- State v. GustafsonOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Valley Construction Co. v. Perry Host Management Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1990
- Dobbins v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1996
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.