Comment: State v. Hackett, 72 Conn. App. 127

(See in situ)


State v. Hackett, 72 Conn. App. 127

"At oral argument, he claimed that (1) he did not violate § 14-215 because a license is not required to operate a motor vehicle on private property without a posted speed limit, ... We conclude that one whose operator's license is under suspension violates § 14-215 whenever he operates a motor vehicle, regardless of whether it is operated on public or private property"

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1111830444961767...

In Connecticut, this case specifically overturned State v. Haight, 194 A.2nd 718 (1963) because the "plain language [of CGS § 14-215] is more convincing than the Haight analysis."

Tell me I am making crazy points. Do you think that is the only such case in any state? Yes, you are going off the deep end. Not only do you have zero response to the scholarly article I linked you will have no response to this citation. You have no response to a fundamental point the law makes liable not grant permission as if expressions positive obligations, positive rights, or negative rights have never been thought up or discussed. The plain language of the case cited could not prove you more factually incorrect.