People v. Limas

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Limas

159 N.W.2d 241, 10 Mich. App. 283, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1410

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,277

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.W.2d 241 (People v. Limas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Limas, 159 N.W.2d 241, 10 Mich. App. 283, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1410 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Fitzgerald, J.

Defendant was convicted of reckless driving by the recorder’s court traffic division in the city of Detroit after he twice collided with complainant’s car and then sped off on the approach of a police officer who gave chase with defendant running red lights before his apprehension.

The complainant charges defendant with the violation of PA 1949, No 300, § 626.¹ Defendant alleges that the complaint is defective in that this statute no longer exists due to the various amendments made, and that the complaint did not sufficiently specify the conduct complained of. The language [285]*285of the amendatory aet (PA 1965, No 262)² refers to and includes PA 1949, No 300, § 626, the original reckless driving statute, and at no point repeals the original act. The complaint and warrant are sufficiently detailed as to defendant’s conduct. Haskins v. Ralston (1888), 69 Mich 63. See, also, 50 Am Jur, Statutes, § 468, pp 481, 482; People v. Lowell (1930), 250 Mich 349.

Defendant alleges that his conviction of reckless driving was in error as the evidence was not sufficient to show that he was driving in a willful and wanton manner. If one considers the sum total of all the factors of defendant’s conduct, sufficient facts are found to sustain this conviction. Brooks v. Haack (1965), 374 Mich 261.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and McGregor, J., concurred.

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

Fitzgerald, J.

Defendant was convicted of reckless driving by the recorder’s court traffic division in the city of Detroit after he twice collided with complainant’s car and then sped off on the approach of a police officer who gave chase with defendant running red lights before his apprehension.

The complainant charges defendant with the violation of PA 1949, No 300, § 626.¹ Defendant alleges that the complaint is defective in that this statute no longer exists due to the various amendments made, and that the complaint did not sufficiently specify the conduct complained of. The language [285]*285of the amendatory aet (PA 1965, No 262)² refers to and includes PA 1949, No 300, § 626, the original reckless driving statute, and at no point repeals the original act. The complaint and warrant are sufficiently detailed as to defendant’s conduct. Haskins v. Ralston (1888), 69 Mich 63. See, also, 50 Am Jur, Statutes, § 468, pp 481, 482; People v. Lowell (1930), 250 Mich 349.

Defendant alleges that his conviction of reckless driving was in error as the evidence was not sufficient to show that he was driving in a willful and wanton manner. If one considers the sum total of all the factors of defendant’s conduct, sufficient facts are found to sustain this conviction. Brooks v. Haack (1965), 374 Mich 261.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and McGregor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.W.2d 241, 10 Mich. App. 283, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-limas-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack