Blust v. Lamar Advertising Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Frederick N. Young, Judge.
{¶ 1} John and Jean Blust appeal from the trial court’s decision and entry ordering a new trial after they rejected remittitur of a punitive damages award they obtained against Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. (“Lamar”). 1 In a eross appeal, Lamar appeals from the trial court’s decision and entry overruling its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of punitive damages.
{¶ 2} The Blusts advance four assignments of error. First, they contend that the trial court erred in ordering a new trial on the basis of excessive punitive damages. Second,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Preston v. MurtyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Posin v. A. B. C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lowe Excavating Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 150Appellate Court of Illinois · 2005
- Fisher v. BarkerOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- Innovative Technologies Corp. v. Advanced Mgt. Technology, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Blust v. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Lawyers Title Company, LLC v. Kingdom Title Solutions, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.