Legal Opinion

Schneiderman v. Sesanstein

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1929No. 21290PublishedCited by 64 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

The first and chief assignment of error urged by plaintiff in error is based upon the refusal of the trial court to receive in evidence the ordinance of the city of Akron, which refusal was based upon the ground that its provisions are in conflict with the provisions of Section 12603, General Code of Ohio.

Although, as stated by the Court of Appeals, with a single exception all of the witnesses who testified as to the speed of defendant’s automobile were of the opinion that it was not in excess of 15 miles per hour, the evidence of the one witness who testified that the speed was greater was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Niehaus v. State Ex Rel. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  3. City of Bucyrus v. State Department of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Stange v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Mendel v. DormanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924

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

3Cited by64 opinions

  1. Miller v. LintOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Canton v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Mendenhall v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. State v. LingmanUtah Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Village of West Jefferson v. RobinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1965

59 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