Legal Opinion
Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 28, 2009No. 2008-1337Published
1Opinion of the Court
[Cite as Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., 122 Ohio St.3d 546,
2009-Ohio-3554.] WILLIAMS, APPELLEE, v. SPITZER AUTOWORLD CANTON, L.L.C., APPELLANT. [Cite as Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., 122 Ohio St.3d 546,
2009-Ohio-3554.] Contract — Parol evidence — Consumer Sales Practices Act — The parol evidence rule applies to actions brought pursuant to the Consumer Sales Practices Act — Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(22) in this context unconstitutionally usurps the legislative function — Judgment reversed. (No. 2008-1337 — Submitted April 22, 2009 — Decided July 28, 2009.)…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. FrancisOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Galmish v. CicchiniOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. DupuisOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C.Ohio Supreme Court · 2009
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.