State v. Wall

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 13, 1962

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1962-03-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““a. Any person driving a vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of any other conditions then existing, and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. “b. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section and except in those instances where a lower speed is specified in this chapter, it shall be prima facie lawful for the driver of a vehicle to drive the same at a speed not exceeding the following, but in any case when such speed would be unsafe it shall not be lawful. * Hs * [Then follows seven separate categories of conditions with authorized speeds of 15 to 20 miles per hour for the various conditions specified, which are eliminated herein in the interest of brevity]. “It shall be prima facie unlawful for any person to exceed any of the foregoing speed limitation, except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section. In every charge of violation of this section the complaint, also the warrant or notice to appear, shall specify the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven, also the speed which this section declares shall be prima facie lawful at the time and place of such alleged violation. “c. Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions are hereby authorized in their discretion to increase the speed which shall be pri”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Trimming

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-03-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2022

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dueeey, P. J.,

¶1 concurring. The affidavit does not state the time of the offense. The defendant filed a demurrer. Section 4511.21 of the Revised Code provides:

¶2 “In every charge of violation of this section the affidavit and warrant shall specify the time, place, and the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven …

¶3 I, therefore, concur that the affidavit is defective and the judgment must lie reversed.

¶4 I am impressed with the fact that on the record as it now stands the defendant has been twice tried and twice found not guilty prior to the present trial. It is somewhat difficult to understand how, on this record, the third trial came about.