a. Based upon the information presented in the problem, conduct an analysis of the client’s case and prepare a complete and detailed analysis of the problem.
b. Repeat assignment a, assuming the following facts: The client began the passing maneuver approximately 20 feet from the end of the no-passing zone and completed it in a passing zone. There was no oncoming traffic, and the client completed the maneuver safely.
c. Repeat assignment a, assuming the following facts: The client began the passing maneuver in a passing zone, but completed it in a no- passing zone.
d. What additional information, if any, may be necessary for a complete analysis of the preceding problems?

Client’s Facts
The client was cited for passing in a no-passing zone. Frustrated by a slow-moving vehicle on a two-lane highway, the client admits that he passed the vehicle
entirely in a no-passing zone—that he began and ended the passing maneuver in an area where the center of the road was marked with two solid stripes. There was
no oncoming traffic, and he made the maneuver safely. Rule of Law The state’s motor vehicle code, Section 293–301, provides that it is a violation of state law to pass a vehicle in a no-passing zone. In the statute, a no-passing zone is defined as that portion of the road marked by two solid lines painted in the center of the road. Passing zones are indicated by single, eight-foot stripes down the center of the road.
Case Law
The only relevant case on the subject is State v. Roth. In that case, Mr. Roth was cited for improper passing. He began the passing maneuver in the last 30 feet of a no passing zone and completed it in a passing zone. There were no oncoming vehicles. Evidence presented to the trial court established that the last 30 feet of the no-passing zone should have been marked as part of the passing zone. Mr. Roth appealed his conviction in the trial court. On appeal, the state’s highest court held that the purpose of the state motor vehicle code is to ensure safety on the public highways. The court ruled that Mr. Roth’s passing maneuver was clearly made safely, and in light of the evidence that the no-passing zone was improperly marked, a strict reading of the statute was not appropriate. Mr. Roth’s conviction was set aside.

Assignment: The researcher is assigned the task of analyzing the likelihood that the client’s ticket can be set aside.