George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling
7 Ohio Law. Abs. 703
This text of 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 703 (George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 703 (Ohio 1929).
Opinion
Syllabus by
AUTOMOBILES
(50 Re) Section 6310-28a GC, does not confer an absolute and unqualified right of way upon the driver of a motor “vehicle approaching from the right,” neither does it excuse the driver of such vehicle from the common law duty to exercise ordinary care. Heidle v. Baldwin, 118 Ohio St., 375, approved and followed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Heidle v. Baldwin
161 N.E. 44 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1928)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
7 Ohio Law. Abs. 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-ast-candy-co-v-kling-ohio-1929.