State v. Breedlove

Baltimore City Court

State v. Breedlove

4 Balt. C. Rep. 20

DecidedAugust 28, 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Balt. C. Rep. 20 (State v. Breedlove) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Baltimore City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Breedlove, 4 Balt. C. Rep. 20 (Md. Super. Ct. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

HEUISLER, J.

The Court being of the opinion that street railway cars are excepted from the operation of the Act of 1918, Chapter 85, both by the express provision of Section 134 of said act and by implication, because of the physical impossibility of their compliance with the terms of said act (State, use of Stumpf, vs. Baltimore and Belair Electric Railway Company, 133 Md. 411), it follows that no jurisdiction was vested in the Traffic Court to impose a fine upon the traversers for a violation of the provisions of said act, and, therefore, the traversers are “not guilty”.

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

HEUISLER, J.

The Court being of the opinion that street railway cars are excepted from the operation of the Act of 1918, Chapter 85, both by the express provision of Section 134 of said act and by implication, because of the physical impossibility of their compliance with the terms of said act (State, use of Stumpf, vs. Baltimore and Belair Electric Railway Company, 133 Md. 411), it follows that no jurisdiction was vested in the Traffic Court to impose a fine upon the traversers for a violation of the provisions of said act, and, therefore, the traversers are “not guilty”.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Balt. C. Rep. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-breedlove-mdcityctbalt-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack