Hot answers tagged

10

Because the ordinance does not say "and from each entrance", it cannot be interpreted to mean that the signs must both be visible and readable anywhere in the area as well as being visible and readable from the entrance. The use of distinct prepositions in the conjuncts means that the notice requirement can be satisfied by different signs: it's not ...


9

The answer is in the text: [...] unless such parking area is posted with signs [...] which are clearly visible and readable [...] and at each entrance thereto. I read this as an inclusive and: it needs to be both readable and also at each entrance, but it can be a different sign from those visible at each spot of the place.


8

Your question seems to be whether it's posted with signs as prescribed by this Section which are (clearly visible and readable from any point within the parking area) and (at each entrance thereto). or parking area is posted with signs as prescribed by this Section which are clearly visible and readable from (any point within the parking area and at each ...


3

This is likely to be a matter of policy rather than law That is, it’s not likely there is a law prohibiting it but it is highly likely that the person’s training and their employer’s policy on the matter is that they must complete a ticket once they start it. It’s a pretty universal anti-corruption measure - it prevents the situation where they are writing ...


3

There are multiple methods of reading legal texts. A literal approach is common, but not always the most effective. This can be seen by the 3 previous answers, which all took a textual approach, but came to different conclusions. Indeed, the text is literally ambiguous. Another common approach is to read the text in order to discover the intent of the ...


3

There is no general rule about ownership: one parking lot I know is owned by the city, another is owned by the company that operates the mall, and in a third case it is owned by a third party who doesn't operate the mall. Either way, the owner of the parking lot has the property right to limit how it is used, and their agents (security guards, for example) ...


2

I can now answer my own question with anecdotal evidence. I was able to successfully argue (in an administrative penalty tribunal, not a proper trial though) that the by-law supersedes posted signs, and my ticket was cancelled as a result. The hearing officer noted that parking enforcement officers typically use actual sign placement as the indication of ...


2

Assuming the signs are properly placed by the municipality or other legal authority, Would it be a valid defence to say that, since the signs do not reflect the bylaw, and no other laws were violated, the car was parked legally and the issued ticket ("park prohibited day/time") is not valid? If the ticket is issued soley on the specific bylaw ...


2

No, even if not used, they are explicitly required by federal law! The History of handicapped parking started in the 60s. In the late 1960s, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act banned discrimination against disabilities and then the Amaricans with Disabilities Act entered Congress in 1988. It passed as law in 1990 and included section 4.6 Parking and ...


1

EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES From your link EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES - a special or specified circumstance, including such types of extenuating circumstances established by the City Solicitor, that partially or fully exempts a person from performance of a legal obligation so as to avoid an unreasonable or disproportionate burden or obstacle.


1

This "No Parking" sign is the sign the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) has designated R8-3. According to the MUTCD, to which all states are required to adhere, section 2B.47 paragraph 18, this sign would indicate that any parking is prohibited along a given highway: In rural areas (see Figure 2B-25), the legends NO PARKING ON ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible