Legal Opinion

Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 2001No. 00-1076PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

In this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile. We hold that a consumer enjoys a presumption of recovery under R.C. 1345.73(B) if his or her vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days in the first year of ownership regardless of whether the vehicle was successfully repaired at some point beyond that thirty-day period.

Factual and Procedural Background

The facts here are not in dispute. On February…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Maitland v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess SchoolOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  3. Klein v. MoutzOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. McHenry v. McHenryOhio Court of Appeals · 2017

10 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