Legal Opinion
Charvat v. Ryan
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 27, 2007No. 2006-1647 and 2006-1855PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.
{¶ 1} This case concerns unwanted telephone solicitation through use of automated equipment, which now makes a caller subject to liability under federal and state statutes. The issue before us is whether the terms “knowingly” and “willfully” as used in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), Section 227, Title 47, U.S.Code, and the term “knowingly” in the Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”), R.C. Chapter 1345, require that a defendant merely act in a manner that violates the acts or whether the defendant must also know that the conduct violates the laws. We hold that a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lambert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Bryan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. MeadeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Luis Humberto BarbosaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Charvat v. NMP, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
- Motorists Mutual Insurance v. Dandy-Jim, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Reagans v. MountainHigh Coachworks, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2008
- Jarvis v. Stone, 23904 (7-2-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Charvat v. Farmers Insurance Columbus, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.