State v. Senko
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Diggs v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1988)
- Chapman v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this, the first operating-under-the-influence ease involving a moped to reach us, it was alleged that the Defendant, Andrew J. Senko, on August 21, 1982, at South Portland, had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; and the parties had stipulated that the vehicle then and there operated was a moped.
When the District Court (Ninth District, Portland) granted the Defendant’s pre-trial motion to dismiss the complaint on the
In light of statutory provisions which define a “motor vehicle” as meaning any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively on tracks, including motorcycles, but not including snowmobiles, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1(7); which make the operator of a moped subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this Title, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1961; and which make the operator of a moped subject to all the penalties within this Title, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1963; the District Court was in error.
The entry is:
Appeal sustained.
Order of dismissal vacated.
Remanded to District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.
All concurring.
. See People v. Jordan, 75 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 142 Cal.Rptr. 401, 405 (App.Dep’t Super.Ct. 1977); State v. Lyons, 159 N.J.Super. 100, 386 A.2d 1378 (Super.Ct.App.Div. 1978); United States v. Stancil, 422 A.2d 1285, 1287 (D.C.App. 1980); see generally Annot., 66 A.L.R.2d 1146 (1959).
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.