This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: des not cover his behavior. Analysis The court was right to reverse the decision pertaining to Schofield. The definition of vehicle used in prior cases cannot be stretched to incorporate a horse within this specific case. The fact that prior cases such as People v. Szymanski, Conrad v. Dillinger, and State v. Stewart (from other states) included wagons, a team and a stage coach, in addition to the horse, allows them to be considered vehicles. The statute did not cover Schofields behavior and thus was not applicable. The Court elucidates that they are examining the law and its language in order to deliver due process. They were fair in their interpretation of the law and realized that the definition of vehicle as it appeared with common language and previous cases did not encompass a horse. The court was very careful to examine the details of the laws language....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 11/17/2008 for the course AEM 3200 taught by Professor Grossman,d. during the Fall '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).
- Fall '07