Zeiger v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Robinson v. State

    341 S.E.2d 497 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, his activity did not fall within any proscription of OCGA ยง 40-6-98. Compare Zeiger v. State, 140 Ga. App. 610 ( 231 S.E.2d 494) (1976), in which the appellant was " selling or giving away newspapers or asking donations . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)

  2. Crook v. State

    120 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    Taking the state's argument one step further, however, we are satisfied that the statutory purpose of preventing solicitation on the highway (and indeed the raison d'etre of all the regulations codified as "The Uniform Rules of the Road" (Code Ann. Title 68A)) is to promulgate the safe and expeditious movement of vehicular traffic on the highways. See Zeiger v. State, 140 Ga. App. 610 (3) ( 231 S.E.2d 494) (1976). The solicitation of the occupant of a vehicle on the highway is a conceded threat and impediment to the movement of vehicular traffic; the solicitation of a pedestrian not within the flow of the traffic is not.