Home/Ohio Supreme Court/George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling

George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 703
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling. Read the opinion of the Court — 121 Ohio St. 362 →
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 20, 1929·No. No. 21657·Published

Opinion

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

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.

Kinkade, Robinson, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur. Robinson and Day, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 703 (Ohio 1929).

7 Ohio Law. Abs. 703 (George Ast Candy Co. v. Kling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heidle v. Baldwin
161 N.E. 44 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1928)