Legal Opinion

Miller v. Ritchie

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 1989No. 88-1296PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.

The record clearly demonstrates Miller was aware of the defects in the Ritchies’ apartment, yet *224failed to maintain the leasehold as required by law. The record also establishes that the Ritchies were aware of escrow procedures, but did not escrow rent or pursue the remedies provided by R.C. 5321.07. The issues for our resolution are: (1) whether the Ritchies waived the right to recover damages by occupying the defective rental premises for over two years without pursuing the remedies provided in R.C. 5321.07, and (2) whether the trial court properly computed damages.3 For the following…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Smith v. PadgettOhio Supreme Court · 1987

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Faber v. Queen City Terminals, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Wenzke v. BairdOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. Law Offices of Taiwo Agbaje, P.C. v. JLH Properties, II, LLCCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  4. Rosalind Holmes v. Cobblestone GroveOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. NW Ohio Servs. III, L.L.C. v. ThamesOhio Court of Appeals · 2024

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