IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant ) On Appeal from the Eighth District Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
|
|
- Anastasia O’Brien’
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 RIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DONALD MULL ) CASE NO vs- Plaintiff-Appellant ) On Appeal from the Eighth District Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County TAKARA MADKINS, et al. Defendants-Appellees Court of Appeals Case No. CA DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' JOINT OPPOSITION BRIEF TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION STANLEY L. JOSSELSON ( ) JAY S. HANSON ( ) Marion Building, Suite Lakeside Place, Suite West Third Street Cleveland, OH Cleveland, OH (216) (T) * (877) (FAX) Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant ihansonkamfam.com Attorney for Defendant'-Appellee, Takara Madkins RUT VE MAR D CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COUR i OF OHIO C. RICHARD McDONALD ( ) BEVERLY A. ADAMS ( ) DAVIS & YOUNG 1200 Fifth Third Center 600 Superior Avenue, East Cleveland OH (216) (T) * (216) (FAX) rmcdonalgdavisvoune. com badams davisyoung.com Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, Westfield Insurance Company LDD MAR 0 i 2011 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
2 INTRODUCTION This matter involves a typical motor vehicle versus pedestrian accident. The action proceeded to a jury trial and a verdict was returned in favor of Appellees. Appellant asserts that there was error in the instruction of the jury as to the duties of Appellant and Appellee Takara Madkins and that such error qualifies as a public or great general interest. Contrary to Appellant's assertion, nothing in the instant case merits review by this Court. Rather, the trial court instructed the jury on the well-established respective duties and right of way of pedestrians and motorists under Ohio law. Further, the appellate court simply followed and applied well-established precedent to a specific set of facts to find no plain error in the trial court's instructions to the jury. More importantly, Appellant never objected to the jury instructions given at trial but, in fact, he actually agreed to the instructions provided to the jury of which he now complains. As demonstrated below, not one of the issues presented by Appellant qualifies as an issue of public or great general interest and, therefore, neither warrant this Court's discretionary review. Accordingly, this Court should decline to entertain the instant appeal. STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS Appellant Donald Mull ("Mull") filed a Complaint against Appellees Takara Madkins ("Madkins") for negligence and Westfield Insurance Company for underinsured motorists coverage ("Westfield"), collectively "Appellees," as a result of injuries he sustained from a pedestrian - motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 23, Appellees timely filed their Answers thereto asserting, among other affirmative defenses, that Appellee Madkins was not negligent and that Appellant's own actions were the proximate cause of his injuries. 1
3 The case proceeding to a jury trial on January 6, The evidence at trial revealed: The accident occurred at the busy intersection of Ontario Street and Huron Road in Cleveland, Ohio, at 9:00 a.m. during rush hour with a high volume of traffic. At this intersection, Ontario Street is an eight-lane highway, with five lanes heading northbound and three lanes heading southbound. Of the five northbound Ontario lanes, two of the lanes are for traffic turning left onto Huron Road, while the other three northbound Ontario lanes proceed straight or turn right. There are three marked crosswalks at three corners of this intersection, each equipped with pedestrian signals. There is no marked crosswalk for pedestrians to cross west to east across Ontario at the south end of the intersection. Just before the accident, Mull was dropped off by a vehicle at the southwest corner of the intersection. Immediately after exiting the vehicle, Mull began crossing the south portion of Ontario Street and its eight lanes of traffic where there was no marked crosswalk. He admitted that he never looked at the traffic lights before proceeding across the eight lanes of traffic on Ontario Street but proceeded across the intersection merely because traffic was stationary. Although Ontario Street northbound traffic began to move as he crossed the eight lanes of traffic, he did not stop crossing the intersection but quickened his pace to across the intersection. At that same time, Madlcins was proceeding northbound on Ontario Street and was stopped at the red light. She was the first car in the second lane from the east curb of northbound traffic. The light turned green, and Ms. Madlcins took her foot off the brake to move forward. A car in the lane to her left proceeded into the intersection. Madkins was looking straight ahead, and she too proceeded to go through the green light very slowly. Unfortunately, Mull walked right in front of her vehicle and Madkins struck him. Madkins never saw Mull prior to the accident. Madkins 2
4 testified that she was not on her cell phone at the time nor was she distracted or otherwise occupied with anything in her vehicle, nor was any evidence presented to the contrary from independent witnesses. Prior to instructing the jury, the trial court and all counsel discussed the instructions to be given to the jury as to the duties and right of way of Mull and Madkins. Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court addressed with counsel the jury instructions. Pertinently, Mull never objected to the instruction and, more importantly, Mull's counsel even agreed to the instruction of which he now complains: THE COURT: Let the record reflect we're out of the presence of the jury. We had a conversation in chambers relative to the jury instructions. I know that there are objections. I want to have parties place those upon the record. It is the intention of the Court, this is not in any specific order, but I will give the charge requested under , "Not in a crosswalk." I'm not going to make reference, by the way, to the specific code section, statute, or OJI. It starts off, "Pedestrian crossing in the roadway at any point other than the within," blah, blah, blah. That's been aereed to I'm told? Is that accurate? MR. HANSON: MR. McDONALD: THE COURT: Yes. That portion, yes. Okay. And the use of ordinary care toward a pedestrian, that's been agreed to as well? MR. JOSSELSON [Mull's counsel]: That's the statute. The trial court then instructed the jury in pertinent part as follows: A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection must yield the right of way to all vehicles on the roadway. A driver of a vehicle with the right of way must use ordinary care or caution to avoid colliding with a pedestrian on the roadway. What does crosswalk mean? That part of a roadway at intersections ordinarily included within the real or projected prolongation of property lines and curb lines or, 3
5 in the absence of curbs, the edges of the traversable roadway; Number Two, any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere, distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface; Number Three, notwithstanding the earlier divisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crosswalk. Again, Mull never objected to the instruction. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees finding Madkins not negligent in the operation of her motor vehicle. Thereafter, Appellant filed an appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals asserting two assignments of error: (1) that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) that the trial court committed plain error in failing to provide a jury instruction on a pedestrian's right of way within a crosswalk. The court of appeals overruled both assignments of error.' In overruling Appellant's first assignment of error, the court of appeals correctly found, inter alia, that the evidence did not demonstrate that Madkins breached any duty of care in operation of her motor vehicle.z It also properly found that there was no authority to support Mull's claim that, as a pedestrian, he had a right to proceed uninterruptedly as a matter of law against a red light in an unmarked crosswalk.3 In overruling Appellant's second assignment of error, the Court of appeals also found that the trial court did not commit "plain error" in failing to provide alternative jury instructions because (1) no alternative instructions were requested by Appellant and (2) Appellant's counsel actually agreed to the instructions provided to the jury.4 The court of appeals even noted that ' See Mull v. Madkins, et al. (Dec. 23, 2010), 8' Dist. No , p. 7, 8. (Attached to Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant). 2 Id. at p. 4, 4. ' I d. at p Id. at p. 8, 2. 4
6 even assuming arguendo that other jury instructions should have been provided, the error would have been upon Appellant.5 The trial court and appellate court simply followed and applied well-established precedent to a specific set of facts. Accordingly, not one of the issues presented by Appellant qualifies as an issue of public or great general interest and, therefore, neither warrant this Court's discretionary review. Accordingly, this Court should decline to entertain the instant appeal. THIS CASE IS NOT OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST The Court should decline review because the lower courts' instructions and/or opinions did not depart from well-established precedent or change the law. Rather, the trial court followed and gave the jury standard instructions based on the applicable Ohio Revised Code sections governing the duties and right of way of motorists and pedestrians on public highways-the very instructions to which Appellant agreed. The Court ofappeals also properly reviewed the trial court's instructions under a plain error standard and found no error at all on the part of the trial court in the jury instructions provided. The case herein demonstrates an application of well-delineated law by the courts below to a specific set of facts, and, thus, a review of the same is unwarranted. LAW AND ARGUMENT Argument Against Proposition of Law I: Appellant contends that "the duty of care owed by a driver of a motor vehicle to a pedestrian is, and should be, defined by the circumstances surrounding the accident and not solely by the point at the roadway where the pedestrian elected to cross the street." Appellant's proposition of law has no merit. Appellant contends that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury as to the respective duties and right of way of Appellant/pedestrian and s rd. 5
7 Appellee/motorist.b Appellant further asserts that this Court should accept this appeal to determine the duty owed by a motorist when a pedestrian is encountered in either a marked crosswalk, an unmarked crosswalk; or where there is neither a marked or unmarked crosswalk.' To the contrary, Ohio law is well-established and clear as to the respective duties and right of way of Appellant/pedestrian and Appellee/motorist while on public highways, and the jury herein was properly instructed on the same at trial. Accordingly, there is nothing of public or great general interest for this Court to review. Foremost, it is imperative to note that Appellant never objected to the jury instructions given of which he now complains. In fact, Appellant even agreed to the jury instructions when the trial court discussed the same with counsel on the record. It is well-established by this Court and Ohio law that a party who fails to raise an argument in the trial court waives his right to raise it on appeal unless there is plain error.8 The court of appeals analyzed the issue and properly found that there was no plain error by the trial court in the jury instructions it provided at trial.9 In so holding, the court of appeals found that "the trial court did not commit plain error in failing to provide alternative instructions when (1) such instructions were not requested, and (2) Mull's counsel agreed to the instructions provided."10 6 Mull v. Madkins, et al. (Dec. 23, 2010), 8' Dist. No , p. 7, 1. ' Id. s See, e.g., State ex rel. Zollner v. Indus. Comm., 66 Ohio St.3d 276, 278,1993 Ohio 49,611 N.E.2d 830; Barry v. Rolfe (June 26, 2008), 2008 Ohio 3131, P36; Bank ofn. Y. v. Jordan (Aug. 23, 2007), 2007 Ohio Mull v. Madkins, supra, p. 8, Id. 6
8 More importantly, Appellant's assertion that this Court should accept this appeal to detennine the duty owed by a motorist when a pedestrian is encountered in either a marked crosswalk, an umnarked crosswalk, or where there is neither a marked or unmarked crosswalk is without merit. Ohio law is well-established and clear as to the respective duties and right of way of pedestrians, whether in a marked or unmarked crosswalk, and motorists while on public highways." Revised Code (UU) provides the definition of right of way, R.C (A) prescribes when a pedestrian shall yield the right of way considering marked and unmarked crosswalks, R.C delineates that a pedestrian shall cross in marked crosswalks where traffic control signals are in operation, and common law and R.C (E) provide that a driver is to exercise ordinary care in the operation of a motor vehicle to avoid a pedestrian. At trial, the jury was properly instructed on the same and properly found that there was no evidence that Appellee Madkins failed to exercise ordinary care. There is nothing for this Court to review or determine because Ohio law is wellestablished and clear. In addition, Appellant's argument that, although Appellee had a green light, she had an absolute duty to yield to him because he was a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk is an incorrect statement of the law.12 In asserting the same, Appellant claims: under Ohio Rev. Code (A) a motor vehicle does not have a right of way when a pedestrian elects to cross in the confines of marked or unmarked crosswalk." " See, e.g., R.C (delineating the definition of right of way); R.C (A) (prescribing when a pedestrian shall yield the right of way); R.C (prescribing that a pedestrian shall cross in marked crosswalks where traffic control signals are in operation). 12 Mull v. Madkins, et al. (Dec. 23, 2010), 8"' Dist. No , p. 3, 2. 7
9 To the contrary, R.C has nothing to do with a motor vehicle's right ofway. Revised Code (A) provides: (A) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles, trackless trolleys, or streetcars upon the roadway. [Emphasis added]. Id. The plain language of the statute clearly evidences that it only pertains to a pedestrian's duty to yield the right of way in various circumstances. Therefore, R.C (A) does not support Appellant's argument. Further, Appellant's argument suggests that any pedestrian proceeding in a marked or unmarked crosswalk has the absolute right to cross an intersection regardless of the color of the traffic signals and that any motorist, including a motorist proceeding on a green light, has an absolute duty to detect and yield the right of way to such pedestrian. Clearly, such an argument is a complete degradation of the basic, well-established statutory regulations governing pedestrians and motorists on public highways. As the court of appeals correctly held, there is no authority that Appellant as a pedestrian had an absolute right to proceed across an intersection in an unmarked crosswalk "uninterrupted" as a matter of law, especially since Appellant was proceeding against a red light across eight lanes of traffic at rush hour where there was no marked crosswalk.14 Further, the Court of appeals did not hold that Appellee did not have a "duty to look" as asserted by Appellant. To the contrary, the Court of appeals stated that: the mere fact that Madkins struck Mull does not in of itself establish that she breached a duty of ordinary care. As this court has previously recognized, "a driver need not look for vehicles or pedestrians violating his right of way unless there is a reason to expect it."15 (Emphasis added). Mull v. Madkins, p. 6, 2. Id. at p. 7, 2, citing, Hawkins v. Shell (Jun. 4, 1998), 8`" Dist. No
10 Clearly, the court of appeals did not hold that Appellee had "no duty to look." It followed wellestablished Ohio law, both as stated by this Court and numerous Ohio courts of appeal, which provides that a driver need not look for vehicles or pedestrians violating his right ofway unless there is a reason to expect it.16 Even though Appellant claims to this Court that there is conflict and confusion in the appellate districts on this issue, Appellant never requested any alleged conflict to be certified to this Court and, a review of the case law reveals that none exists. Herein, there is no doubt that Appellee had no "reason to expect" Appellant to be crossing the eight lane intersection against a red light when the traffic to her left, the direction from which Appellant came, already proceeded into the intersection. In addition, regardless of whether he entered the intersection within the confines of a marked or unmarked crosswalk or otherwise, Appellant fails to recognize in his arguments to this Court that at the time of the accident he was walking across eight lanes of traffic against a red traffic light during rush hour. He fails to recognize that he was hit by Appellee at a time when she proceeded on a green light with the right of way to enter the intersection after the vehicle to her left-the same direction from which Mull came-had already proceeded into the intersection. In the case sub judice, the lower courts' instructions and/or analysis was quite simple with regard to the instructions to provide to the jury based on the well-established applicable Ohio Revised Code sections governing the duties of motorists and pedestrians on public highways as 16 See, e.g., Lumaye v. Johnson, (1992) 80 Ohio App.3d 141; Deming v. Osinski, (1970) 24 Ohio St.2d 179, 180; Timmins v. Russomano, (1968) 14 Ohio St.2d 124; Hawkins v. Shell, (June 4, 1998), 8'h Dist. No ; Snider v. Nieberding, 2003 Ohio 5715; Higgins v. Bennett (12"' Dist., Mar. 6, 2000), CA
11 required by the facts at hand. Undoubtedly, there was no plain error connnitted by the trial court in instructing the jury, as Appellant did not object but even agreed to the instructions provided. Appellant now seeks to disparage the jury instructions to which he agreed and the findings of the court of appeals for self-serving purposes. There is no basis for Appellant's argument that the law does not adequately provide for the duty and right of way for motorists and pedestrians, whether in marked or unmarked crosswalk or otherwise. Particularly, R.C. 4511, et seq. adequately delineates the duties and right of way of pedestrians and motorists on public highways. Appellant merely seeks this Court to promulgate new law as a basis for him to somehow hold Appellee liable for his complete disregard of the traffic signals and well-establish Ohio law. Accordingly, this Court should decline review of this case. Argument Against Proposition of Law II: Appellant contends that "a pedestrian crossing in an unmarked crosswalk, and in an area where pedestrian traffic is or should be expected, maintains a right of way over a driver of a motor vehicle. Therefore, a jury should be instructed on the pedestrian right of way." Appellant contends that a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk has an absolute right of way to proceed over any motor vehicle traffic regardless of traffic signals. This proposition of law is fundamentally flawed in at least two respects. First, it is unsupported by legal precedent. To the extent Appellant has offered legal precedent on this issue in his brief, it is either irrelevant or clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. Appellant cites to Bell v. Giamarco for the proposition that he had the right of way to proceed across the eight lane intersection against a red light over Appellee who had a green light. The facts of Bell are completely opposite to the facts at hand. In Bell, after the plaintiff put on his case, the trial court granted a directed verdict to a driver who had waved to two children indicating that it was 10
12 safe to across the street. In overturning the trial court's directed verdict, the court of appeals cited R.C and stated that there was sufficient evidence to allow the issue of the defendant's liability to go to a jury. Id. at 64. Revised Code provides in pertinent part: When traffic control signals are not in place, not in operation, or are not clearly assigning the right of way, the driver of a vehicle... shall yield the right of way.... to a pedestrian... [Emphasis added]. Id. Clearly, R.C is not applicable to the case sub judice because herein there indisputably were traffic control signals in place that were operational. Beyond that, this matter proceeded to a jury which considered the applicable law and found Appellee Madkins not negligent. Thus, Bell and R.C has no application to the case at hand, and Appellant's reliance on the same is without merit. In addition, Appellant's reliance on Jahraus v. Fryman (1954), 129 N.E.2d 200, for the proposition that he had the right of way in crossing the street at the time of the accident is also without merit. The facts of Jahraus are again distinguishable from the facts at hand. In Jahraus, both the plaintiff-pedestrian and the defendant were proceeding on the green light at the time of the accident: WHERE PLAINTIFF, A PEDESTRL4N, WAS LAWFULLY IN THE CROSSWALK WITH THE GREENLIGHT IN HER FAVOR AT THE TIME SHE W A S STR UCK B Y DEFENDANT MAKING A RIGHT TURN, ALSO WITH THE GREEN LIGHT, A CHARGE BY THE COURT, "I CHARGE YOU AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT MARY JAHRAUS IN CROSSING *** ON THE CROSSWALK, IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE CONTRARY, HAD A RIGHT TO EXPECT AND ASSUME THAT THE DEFENDANT *** WOULD OBEY THE LAW AND YIELD TO HER THE RIGHT OF WAY" WAS CORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS PRESENTED. (SEC GC. ) Id. at syllabus, 4. Clearly, that was not the case herein wherein, at the time of the impact, Appellee had a green light while Appellant did not. 11
13 Appellantthen cites Havens v. Precision Strip, Inc., 2007 Ohio 4082, P 1-P 14 (Ohio Ct. App., Miami County Aug. 3, 2007) for the proposition that a pedestrian with a right of way has an absolute right to proceed uninterrupted and need not look for vehicles violating his right of way. Havens has absolutely no application to the matter at hand as it involves private property and a company's safety policy as to pedestrians and forklifts in a loading area. Id, at *P2. The court of appeals provided: Before the trial, the parties agreed to a proposed jury instruction that the jury could consider the company safety, policy, which "requires that employees driving forklifts yield the'right of way' to pedestrians." Both parties stipulated that this was Precision Strip's policy, and Stueve also testified to being informed of the policy during safety training. Precision Strip proposed a standard instruction on comparative negligence, proximate cause, burden of proof, and a duty to look and look effectively. Havens filed a memorandum in opposition to the comparative negligence instruction. The jury was instructed that it could consider Precision Strip's safety policy, including the requirement to yield to pedestrians, in determining whether Stueve was negligent in operating the forklift. The trial court was not required to use the "yield the right of way" language [of the Revised Code] even though the parties initially proposed instructions containing that language. The instruction given by the trial court did not mislead the jury in a manner that materially affected Havens' substantial rights. Further, Havens cannot show prejudice because he agreed to an instruction on comparative negligence. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's failure to define "right of way" or to use the term in its instructions. Certainly, Haven has no application to the case at hand. The legal precedent offered by Appellant is indisputably irrelevant and clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. Further, Appellant's argument that the foregoing case law evidences a need for "clarity" by this Court is unfounded. The foregoing cases apply different law and reach different conclusions because they are all factually distinguishable from each other requiring different legal applications. Citing to various cases that have no analogy to each other certainly will show varying applications of law. However, Appellant has not shown any "conflicting" case 12
14 involving a motor vehicle proceeding on a green light and a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk walking across eight lanes of traffic at rush hour against a red light. Second, and more importantly, this proposition of law runs contrary to common sense. A pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk clearly cannot have an "absolute" right of way to cross an intersection when there is a red traffic signal. To hold the same would not only abrogate the basic Ohio law that provides the right of way to all others on public roadways who have a green traffic signal, but it would invite chaos for motorists dodging pedestrians entering public roadways against red traffic signals and a plethora of litigation. Appellant's second proposition of law is unsupported by legal precedent and is contrary to common sense. It is not a public or great general interest. Accordingly, this Court should decline review of this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing and the lower courts' opinions, Defendants-Appellees respectfully request that this Court decline Plaintiff-Appellant's request for jurisdiction regarding this matter. Resllectfully submitted, S. HA SON ( ) 323 Lakeside Place, Suite 380 Cleveland, OH (216) (T) * (877) (FAX) j hansonkamfam. com Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, Takara Madkins 13
15 C. RICHAff McDONALD ( ) BEVERLYA. ADAMS ( ) DAVIS & YOUNG 1200 Fifth Third Center 600 Superior Avenue, East Cleveland OH (216) (T) * (216) (FAX) rmedonalgdavisvoun e. coin badamsgdavis young.com Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, Westfield Insurance Company 14
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing is being served via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on this ilth day of March, 2011, upon the following: Stanley L. Josselson, Esq. Marion Building, Suite West Third Street Cleveland, OH Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant McDONALD ( ) BEVERLY A. ADAMS ( ) DAVIS & YOUNG 1200 Fifth Third Center 600 Superior Avenue, East Cleveland OH (216) (T) * (216) (FAX) rmcdonalkdavis youn.^om badams@davisyoun g. com Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, Westfield Insurance Company 15
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Wooster Floral & Gifts, L.L.C. v. Green Thumb Floral & Garden Ctr., Inc., 2019-Ohio-63.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) WOOSTER FLORAL &
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 3, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2311 Lower Tribunal Nos. 2015-30307, 2015-30305 West
More information120 December 29, 2016 No. 654 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
120 December 29, 2016 No. 654 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES RICHARD GREENE, Defendant-Appellant. Lincoln County Circuit Court 123672; A154816
More informationMAY 1993 LAW REVIEW ADEQUACY OF SPECTATOR PROTECTION IN DANGER ZONE A JURY ISSUE
ADEQUACY OF SPECTATOR PROTECTION IN DANGER ZONE A JURY ISSUE James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1993 James C. Kozlowski In 1981, the New York state supreme court, in Akins v. Glen Falls City School District,,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012 DIANNA DOUGLAS-SEIBERT, F/K/A DIANNA DOUGLAS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Case No. 5D10-3562 LOUIS RICCUCCI AND
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT. CA consolidated with CA **********
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 06-520 consolidated with CA 06-521 ROY S. OSWALT, ET AL. VERSUS DANIEL J. WALTERS, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE
More informationPedestrian Crossing Facilitation Guideline Development
Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation Guideline Development TZD Conference Melissa Barnes October, 2017 Why? Minnesota Go: Minnesota s multimodal transportations system maximizes the health of people, the environment,
More informationIC Chapter 3. Traffic Control Signals
IC 9-21-3 Chapter 3. Traffic Control Signals IC 9-21-3-0.5 "Pedestrian hybrid beacon" Sec. 0.5. As used in this chapter, "pedestrian hybrid beacon" means a traffic control signal used to warn and control
More information$3.35 MILLION LAWSUIT ALLEGES ACCIDENT CAUSED BY FUNERAL HOME MISHANDLING OF PROCESSION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin W. Glass, Ill 703-591-9829; 703-539-9490 cell Ben@BenGlassLaw.com, www.benglasslaw.com $3.35 MILLION LAWSUIT ALLEGES ACCIDENT CAUSED BY FUNERAL
More informationIC Chapter 3. Traffic Control Signals
IC 9-21-3 Chapter 3. Traffic Control Signals IC 9-21-3-0.5 "Pedestrian hybrid beacon" Sec. 0.5. As used in this chapter, "pedestrian hybrid beacon" means a traffic control signal used to warn and control
More informationCHAPTER 313 Traffic Control Devices
31 CHAPTER 313 Traffic Control Devices 313.01 Obedience to traffic control 313.07 Unauthorized signs and devices. signals, hiding from view, 313.02 Through streets; stop and advertising. yield right-of-way
More informationDennis s Law. Dennis Jurs Purple Heart Recipient. Bicycling Led To Rehabilitation. Team MACK. May 18, May 18, /16/2016
Dennis s Law HOW THE TRAGIC DEATH OF AN ILLINOIS BICYCLIST LED TO A CHANGE IN ILLINOIS LAW Dennis Jurs Purple Heart Recipient Dennis Jurs served in the United States Army with the 65th Engineering Battalion,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002 MARLENE SEELBINDER and JAMES SEELBINDER, etc., Appellants, v. CASE NO. 5D00-3308 COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, etc., Appellee.
More informationReferred to Committee on Transportation. SUMMARY Revises provisions governing rules of the road. (BDR )
A.B. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. ASSEMBLYMEN SPRINKLE, CARRILLO, BOBZIEN; PAUL ANDERSON, BENITEZ-THOMPSON, COHEN, DALY, EISEN, FLORES, HEALEY, SPIEGEL, SWANK AND WHEELER FEBRUARY, 0 JOINT SPONSOR: SENATOR SMITH
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:16-cv-04162-ODE Document 15 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, v. Plaintiff, TROPICAL
More informationLiability and Complete Streets. Janine G. Bauer, Esq.
Liability and Complete Streets Janine G. Bauer, Esq. Liability & Immunity Q. Does enhancement of safety through adoption of a Complete Streets policy and design or infrastructure changes expose a public
More informationQuestion Adam against Brad? Discuss. 2. Adam against Dot? Discuss.
Question 1 Adam accepted an invitation from his friend Dot to attend a baseball game. The seats Dot had purchased were very good, a few rows up from the field, and just past first base. Adam had recently
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. DIXON INDUSTRIES, ET AL. : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendants-Appellees :
[Cite as Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Dixon Industries, 2004-Ohio-4925.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO. : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. Case No. 2003-CA-41 v. : T.C. Case
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationTHE SELZ CASE REVISITED AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR THE NATION S BICYCLE OPERATORS. By, Steven M. Magas, Attorney at Law
THE SELZ CASE REVISITED AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR THE NATION S BICYCLE OPERATORS By, Steven M. Magas, Attorney at Law BikeLawyer@aol.com 1 In the summer of 1999 I was asked to become involved with a young
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Anderson v. Schmidt, 2013-Ohio-3524.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99084 DALE ANDERSON, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS vs.
More information2004 NC Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
2004 NC Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) CHAPTER 4D. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL FEATURES Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications Standard: Vehicular traffic
More informationSharing the Road. with Pedestrians Edition. A guide for drivers and pedestrians published by the Arizona Department of Transportation
Sharing the Road with Pedestrians 2017 Edition A guide for drivers and pedestrians published by the Arizona Department of Transportation Sponsored by Tips for Sharing the Road Legally and Safely This pocket
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Cornelius Edward McCray, Jr., Petitioner v. No. 327 C.D. 2015 Pennsylvania Board of Probation Submitted September 11, 2015 and Parole, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE
More informationCHAPTER 71: TRAFFIC RULES. Operation Generally. Accidents. Prohibitions
CHAPTER 71: TRAFFIC RULES Section 71.01 Obstructing traffic 71.02 Reverse or U turns 71.03 Backing vehicles 71.04 Vehicles crossing sidewalks 71.05 Speed limits 71.15 Duty of operator 71.16 Accident report
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 29, 2015; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-000900-MR WILLIAM E. MARCH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS
More informationMUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE TRAFFIC CODE UPDATE MASTER RECOMMENDATION REPORT: 9.14, 9.16, 9.18
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE TRAFFIC CODE UPDATE MASTER RECOMMENDATION REPORT: 9.14, 9.16, 9.18 Report Date: Please send all recommendations for update to Shane Locke (343-8413, lockesr@muni.org) 8-Apr-09
More informationAs Amended by Senate Committee. [As Amended by House Committee of the Whole] As Amended by House Committee. HOUSE BILL No. 2192
As Amended by Senate Committee [As Amended by House Committee of the Whole] Session of 0 As Amended by House Committee HOUSE BILL No. By Committee on Transportation - 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning motor vehicles;
More informationATL L /15/2017 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV
ATL L 002610-16 12/15/2017 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2017648144 JOHN ROBERTELLI, ESQ. (012601990) RIVKIN RADLER LLP 21 Main Street Court Plaza South West Wing Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 201-287-2460 Attorney
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762 DATE: 20180919 DOCKET: C63174 Simmons, Huscroft and Miller JJ.A. BETWEEN Michael Chiocchio Sr. and Michael Chiocchio Jr.
More informationORDINANCE NO E AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FISHERS, INDIANA, ADDING OPERATION OF MOTORVEHICLES AND BICYCLES IN
ORDINANCE NO. 052118E AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FISHERS, INDIANA, ADDING 71.40 OPERATION OF MOTORVEHICLES AND BICYCLES IN ROADWAYS, MULTI-USE PATHS, SIDEWALKS, AND BICYCLE LANES,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Warga v. Palisades Baseball, 2009-Ohio-1224.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT JANE WARGA ) CASE NO. 08 MA 25 ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ) ) VS. ) OPINION ) PALISADES
More informationCase 1:16-cv BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:16-cv-00271-BLW Document 1 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 11 Bradlee R. Frazer, ISB No. 3857 D. John Ashby, ISB No. 7228 William K. Fletcher, ISB No. 7950 HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP 877 Main Street,
More informationPunishing Common Courtesy
Page 1 of 5 View this article online: http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2014/03/06/244965.htm Punishing Common Courtesy By Gary Wickert March 6, 2014 Article Comments Who s At Fault When One Driver
More informationCoaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice
The Physical Educator Vol. 75 pp. 158 162 2018 YOU AND THE LAW Coaches Beware of Participating With Players in Practice Tonya L. Sawyer Zachary B. Elias v. Kenneth Davis and Sterling Edwards; Ct. App.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010 CRYSTAL D. CHARRON, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D08-4504 WARREN A. BIRGE, Appellee. / Opinion filed April 9, 2010 Appeal
More informationLevine v USA Cycling, Inc NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Bernard J.
Levine v USA Cycling, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 33177(U) December 4, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 515257/15 Judge: Bernard J. Graham Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationChapter 315 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. Section Manual and Specifications For Traffic Control Devices.
Chapter 315 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Section 315.010. Authority To Install Traffic Control Devices. The City Traffic Engineer shall place and maintain traffic control signs, signals and devices when and
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-13-0002570 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER C. MUNDON, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
More informationProposed changes to Massachusetts MUTCD Supplement
Proposed changes to Massachusetts MUTCD Supplement John F. Carr National Motorists Association October 24, 2002 This document contains recommendations as to the contents of the Massachusetts MUTCD supplement
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY DARRELL LEWIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF DELAWARE, ) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,) DELAWARE HARNESS RACING ) COMMISSION, ) )
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MATTHEW BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 3, 2004 v No. 222777 Livingston Circuit Court MT. BRIGHTON, INC., LC No. 97-016219-NO Defendant-Appellant. ON REMAND
More informationJohn Hummel. Andrew Steiner. Date: May 1, Jonathan Adams, shou. A. Do bike lanes continue through an intersection? Yes.
To: From: John Hummel Andrew Steiner Date: May 1, 2018 Subject: Jonathan Adams, 17-07274shou A. Do bike lanes continue through an intersection? Yes. The starting point of the analysis is ORS 801.155, which
More informationCity of Albert Lea Policy and Procedure Manual 4.10 ALBERT LEA CROSSWALK POLICY
4.10 ALBERT LEA CROSSWALK POLICY PURPOSE: Pedestrian crosswalks are an integral part of our transportation infrastructure. To be effective and promote safety, marked crosswalks must be installed after
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: December 12, 2002 91949 In the Matter of NICHOLAS P. ZITO, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT NEW YORK
More informationDocument 2 - City of Ottawa Pedestrian Crossover (PXO) Program
40 Document 2 - City of Ottawa Pedestrian Crossover (PXO) Program OVERVIEW The City of Ottawa Pedestrian Crossover (PXO) Program provides the basis for PXO implementation in Ottawa. The program s processes
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE NEAL THOMPSON. v LYNDON MURPHY AND MOTOR AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2007 03078 BETWEEN NEAL THOMPSON v LYNDON MURPHY AND MOTOR AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Claimant First Defendant Second
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SHANNON M. THERRIEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 2, 2003 v No. 241792 Wayne Circuit Court CRYSTAL ADAMS-KREUGER, LASERGRAFT LC No. 01-122844-NH COSMETIC
More informationCHAPTER 12-7 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS, SIGNALS AND DEVICES
CHAPTER 12-7 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS, SIGNALS AND DEVICES 12-7-1 OBEDIENCE No person shall violate any rule, regulation, traffic direction, sign or marking adopted, prescribed, or established in accordance
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :-cv-00-jlq ECF No. filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In Re Application of ZAYN AL-ABIDIN MUHAMMAD HUSAYN (Abu Zubaydah No. CV--0-JLQ and JOSEPH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION THE NATIONAL BANK OF BLACKSBURG, v. Plaintiff, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:18-cv-00310-GEC
More informationv.36f, no Circuit Court, S. D. New York. October 15, THE NEWPORT. HATCH ET AL. V. THE NEWPORT, (NEW YORK & C. S. S. CO., CLAIMANT.
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL REPORTER THE NEWPORT. v.36f, no.14-58 HATCH ET AL. V. THE NEWPORT, (NEW YORK & C. S. S. CO., CLAIMANT.) Circuit Court, S. D. New York. October 15, 1888. COLLISION EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY
More informationSgt. Anthony O'Boyle. Dear Sgt. O Boyle,
Serge Issakov La Jolla, CA 92037 858 232 3967 serge.issakov@gmail.com Sgt. Anthony O'Boyle Traffic & Motors Unit Encinitas Sheriff's Station 175 N El Camino Real Encinitas, CA 92024 Desk : 760 966 3555
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The plaintiff instituted action against the defendant for payment of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE - PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO:1847/09 DATE HEARD: 28/04/2011 DATE DELIVERED: 26/05/2011 In the matter between WESLEY JOHAN JULIUS UITHALER Plaintiff and ROAD
More informationArlington County Police Department Law Enforcement Guide. Enforcing Bicycle Traffic Laws
Arlington County Police Department Law Enforcement Guide Enforcing Bicycle Traffic Laws Arlington County Police Department Safe Bicycling Initiative 2017 About the Arlington Safe Bicycling Initiative The
More informationArlington County Police Department Law Enforcement Guide. Enforcing Bicycle Traffic Laws
Arlington County Police Department Law Enforcement Guide Enforcing Bicycle Traffic Laws Arlington County Police Department Safe Bicycling Initiative 2016 About the Arlington Safe Bicycling Initiative The
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 139 OF 2000 BETWEEN: PAULA CHARLES Claimant and Appearances: Samuel Commissiong for the Claimant Zhinga Horne for the Defendant
More informationNO DUTY TO WARN OF OBVIOUS RISK OF GOLFING IN LIGHTNING STORM
NO DUTY TO WARN OF OBVIOUS RISK OF GOLFING IN LIGHTNING STORM James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski In recent months, I have heard some media reports and received some anecdotal information
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 16-CR Honorable Sean F. Cox
2:16-cr-20394-SFC-APP Doc # 114 Filed 12/01/17 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 2741 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 16-CR-20394
More informationReport Information from ProQuest
Report Information from ProQuest January 23 2015 13:43 23 January 2015 ProQuest Table of contents 1. No Duty Owed by Club in Foul Ball Promotion... 1 Bibliography... 5 23 January 2015 ii ProQuest Document
More informationNorth Carolina Bicycle and Pedestrian Laws
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA A Guide to North Carolina Bicycle and Pedestrian Laws Guidebook on General Statutes, Ordinances, and Resources DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION North Carolina Department of Transportation
More informationPAUL F. SANCHEZ, III CANDIA WOODS GOLF LINKS. Argued: September 15, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationThe Andrews Kurth Moot Court National Championship January 26-29, Competition Rules
The Andrews Kurth Moot Court National Championship January 26-29, 2011 2011 Competition Rules The Andrews Kurth Moot Court National Championship is a competition designed to recognize a law school s sustained
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed January 2, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-2927 Lower Tribunal No. 09-12959
More informationDecember 6, Mayor West, Vice Mayor de Triquet and Members of the City Council
Ct1Saj) eake VIRGINIA Office of the City Attorney 23322 757) 382-6586 Fax( 757) 382-8749 December 6, 2017 To: Mayor West, Vice Mayor de Triquet and Members of the City Council Re: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO. 15-1191 ELECTRONICALLY FILED JAN 14, 2016 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SPENCER JAMES LUDMAN, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, DAVENPORT ASSUMPTION HIGH SCHOOL. Defendant-Appellant. On
More informationTITLE VII: TRAFFIC CODE 70. GENERAL PROVISIONS 71. TRAFFIC RULES 72. PARKING REGULATIONS 73. BICYCLES AND MOTORCYCLES 74.
TITLE VII: TRAFFIC CODE Chapter 70. GENERAL PROVISIONS 71. TRAFFIC RULES 72. PARKING REGULATIONS 73. BICYCLES AND MOTORCYCLES 74. TRAFFIC SCHEDULES 75. PARKING SCHEDULES 1 2 Vine Grove - Traffic Code CHAPTER
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2007
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed February 21, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-1033 Lower Tribunal
More informationRECEIVED by MSC 12/20/ :24:24 AM
KERRI HUNTER OTTO, As next friend for Bailey Anne Marie Noble, Plaintiff-Appellee, v THE INN AT WATERVALE, INC., A domestic corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Heidi M. Hodek (P73966) Matthew T. Hanley (P76164)
More informationA plan for improved motor vehicle access on Railroad Avenue in Provincetown
A plan for improved motor vehicle access on Railroad Avenue in Provincetown February 2011 A plan for improved motor vehicle access on Railroad Avenue in Provincetown INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
More informationv. STATE BOARD Appellee Opinion No OPINION
TOM AND VERA WILLIAMS, Appellants BEFORE THE MARYLAND v. STATE BOARD HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, OF EDUCATION Appellee Opinion No. 99-24 OPINION This is an appeal of the denial of bus transportation
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed September 12, 2007. No. 3D06-1033 Lower Tribunal No. 03-22602 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, etc.,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 4, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1436 Lower Tribunal No. 10-01987 Pedro Gomez, etc.,
More informationDrivers Responsibilities to Pedestrians
Drivers Responsibilities to Pedestrians The following 60 slides use real photos, a video clip and quizzes to teach drivers what to do when they encounter a pedestrian. This takes about 5 minutes to view.
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS
SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION - ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION 1. SARU Position on Doping SARU condemns doping. It is harmful to the health of players, totally contrary to the spirit of rugby and SARU
More informationCYCLISTS AND MOTORISTS SHARE THE ROAD SAND SPRINGS
CYCLISTS AND MOTORISTS SHARE THE ROAD SAND SPRINGS Sand Springs Police Department Summary of Bicycle Laws in Oklahoma The Sand Springs Police Department receives many questions each year about cycling
More informationDENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY 2018-2019 SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTION MANUAL FOR VOLUNTEER EMPLOYEES SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTION MANUAL The
More informationS 0659 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
LC0 0 -- S 0 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 0 A N A C T RELATING TO MOTOR AND OTHER VEHICLES - TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Introduced By: Senators McCaffrey,
More informationDate: Wednesday March 11, :56 From: These cases should help:
Date: Wednesday March 11, 2015-15:24 From: camchada@swbell.net I am looking for a case involving a DPS stop on a 2 lane highway. The reason the officer gave for stopping him was "you are swerving all over
More informationCHAPTER 77: RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Section. Bicycles
CHAPTER 77: RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Section Bicycles 77.01 License required 77.02 Registration required 77.03 Tags and registration certificate 77.04 License fee 77.05 Tags and certificate nontransferable
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013 Opinion filed August 14, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-310 Lower Tribunal No. 12-4058
More informationJANUARY 2013 LAW REVIEW ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR OBSERVABLE BALLFIELD DEFECTS
ASSUMPTION OF RISK FOR OBSERVABLE BALLFIELD DEFECTS James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2013 James C. Kozlowski As illustrated by the cases described herein, where the land is as safe or dangerous as it appears
More informationMichael D. Schrunk, District Attorney
Michael D. Schrunk, District Attorney 1021 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 600 Portland, OR 97204-1193 Phone: 503-988-3162 Fax: 503-988-3643 www.mcda.us M E M O R A N D U M To: From: cc: FILE DDA Glen Banfield
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Vukelich v. Vliegenthart, 2013 BCSC 879 Date: 20130521 Docket: M104368 Registry: Vancouver And Shaeanna Vukelich, by her Litigation Guardian,
More information[Cite as State ex rel. AK Steel Corp. v. Davis, 123 Ohio St.3d 458, 2009-Ohio-5865.]
[Cite as State ex rel. AK Steel Corp. v. Davis, 123 Ohio St.3d 458, 2009-Ohio-5865.] THE STATE EX REL. AK STEEL CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. DAVIS ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. AK Steel Corp.
More informationPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST SAFETY
PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST SAFETY THE PEDESTRIAN Pursuant to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act pedestrians are as responsible for their actions as much as the motorist driving a motor vehicle or cyclist riding
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-470
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT ROGER NIEHAUS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No. 5D17-470
More informationThe government moves for reconsideration of part of my Opinion and Order of September
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., : : ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs, : MOTION
More information(OAL Decision: V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
426-16 (OAL Decision: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu05308-16_1.html) M.R., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, M.R., : PETITIONER, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
More informationCOURTS, HARLEY. index Number : /2004. Cross-Motion: '1 Yes n No SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART PRESENT:
lnedon111i312007 v' " SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART f index Number : 102526/2004 COURTS, HARLEY VS GUSHEE, CHERYL Sequence Number : 001 DISMISS INDEX NO. MOTIONDATE
More informationCrossing Guard Training. Jeffco Public Schools 2007 (Rev. 7/2009)
Crossing Guard Training Jeffco Public Schools 2007 (Rev. 7/2009) Welcome! And Thank You! Welcome to Crossing Guard training for Jeffco Public Schools. Thank you for your time and efforts in ensuring safe
More information1 of 6 7/13/ :04 PM
1 of 6 7/13/2015 12:04 PM MENU FORUM WHAT'S NEW? Log In Register Forum Local Discussion Groups U.S. States California CVC section: No turn on red NEW! Equipment Corner- Check this section for Officer.com
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Roper, 2003-Ohio-2070.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DARSHONED ROPER, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationMAY 2005 NRPA LAW REVIEW DANCING TEEN DIES AFTER BEING RUN OVER BY PARADE FLOAT. James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D James C.
DANCING TEEN DIES AFTER BEING RUN OVER BY PARADE FLOAT James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2005 James C. Kozlowski In the case of Donovan v. West Indian American Day Carnival Association, 2005 NY Slip Op 50052U;
More information77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. House Bill 2732 SUMMARY
Sponsored by Representative BUCKLEY th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--0 Regular Session House Bill SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body
More informationLAGUNA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
LAGUNA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Christa Johnson, Assistant City Manager Jason C. Kravetz, Captain DATE: January 16, 2015 SUBJECT: Laguna Canyon Road Collision Analysis Within the last
More informationP.O. Box 1749 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3A5 Canada Item No. 6 Halifax Regional Council April 11, 2017
P.O. Box 1749 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3A5 Canada Item No. 6 Halifax Regional Council April 11, 2017 TO: SUBMITTED BY: Mayor Savage and Members of the Transportation Standing Committee Original Signed
More informationLomonico v Massapequa Pub. Schools 2010 NY Slip Op 32333(U) August 17, 2010 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /06 Judge: Randy Sue
Lomonico v Massapequa Pub. Schools 2010 NY Slip Op 32333(U) August 17, 2010 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 007574/06 Judge: Randy Sue Marber Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
More informationMUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE TRAFFIC CODE UPDATE MASTER RECOMMENDATION REPORT: 9.20, 9.38
MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE TRAFFIC CODE UPDATE MASTER RECOMMENDATION REPORT: 9.20, 9.38 Report Date: Please send all recommendations for update to Shane Locke (343-8413, lockesr@muni.org) 20-May-09 Code
More informationHINCKLEY GOLF CLUB BUGGY POLICY
HINCKLEY GOLF CLUB BUGGY POLICY (Revised Feb 2016 Medical form updated on advise from NGCAA) The purpose of this document is to set out a policy for use of ride-on buggies on the Hinckley Golf Club course
More information