Legal Opinion

Baek v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 6, 1988No. C-860821 and C-860838PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHildebrandt, J.

Defendant-appellant and cross-appellee the city of Cincinnati (“city”) has taken the instant appeal (App. No. C-860821) from the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant Kwang Henry Baek (“Baek”) on Baek’s complaint seeking damages for the city’s transfer of a motor vehicle in violation of Ohio’s Odometer Rollback and Disclosure Act. On appeal, the city contests the entry of summary judgment for Baek when he was apprised at the time that the vehicle was transferred to him that its odometer did not reflect actual mileage. Baek has also submitted an appeal in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Kalain v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Moldovan v. Cuyahoga County Welfare DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Steadley v. MontanyaOhio Supreme Court · 1981

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hubbard v. Bob McDorman ChevroletOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Harrel v. Talley, 06-Ca-41 (7-23-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Hughes v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Smith v. PartlowOhio Court of Appeals · 2025
  5. State of Ohio Ex Rel v. Midway Motor Sales, 07ap-744 (6-10-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API