Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Turner

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 1977No. 76-1350PublishedCited by 34 opinions

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

  1. Hoban v. RiceOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. State v. StarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Newman v. StinsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1972
  4. State v. HurbeanOhio Court of Appeals · 1970
  5. Application of KunnemanCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1972

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert BernardSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  2. State v. GustafsonOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Valley Construction Co. v. Perry Host Management Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1990
  5. Dobbins v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1996

29 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