Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLanzinger, J.
{¶ 1} We accepted this case as a discretionary appeal to clarify what damages are available under R.C. 1345.09, the private-remedy section of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practice Act (“CSPA”).
*178Facts
{¶ 2} This dispute, which is between appellant, Craig Whitaker, and appellee, M.T. Automotive, Inc., a car dealership doing business as Montrose Toyota (“Montrose”), arose from Whitaker’s attempt to lease a vehicle from Montrose in October 2001. Whitaker initially intended to purchase a used truck from Montrose. After discussing the maximum monthly payment that Whitaker was willing to make, one of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2005
- Columbus Finance, Inc. v. HowardOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Carmine Casella v. Equifax Credit Information Services, and Trans Union CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Birdsall v. CoolidgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- Greene v. Gerber Products Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- McKinney v. Bayer Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2010
- Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- Anderson v. Barclay's Capital Real Estate, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
- Hall v. Banc One Management Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.