Legal Opinion

Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 2006No. 2005-0331PublishedCited by 57 opinions

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

  1. Johnson v. Microsoft Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Columbus Finance, Inc. v. HowardOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Carmine Casella v. Equifax Credit Information Services, and Trans Union CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  4. Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Birdsall v. CoolidgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1876

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Greene v. Gerber Products Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
  2. McKinney v. Bayer Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2010
  3. Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Anderson v. Barclay's Capital Real Estate, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Hall v. Banc One Management Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007

52 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