Legal Opinion · Dissent

Baltimore Savings & Loan Co. v. Frye

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1984No. 83-369Published

1DissentHolmes, J.

I dissent from the majority opinion in that today’s decision significantly misinterprets R.C. 4735.12 and will jeopardize the very existence of the Real Estate Recovery Special Account.

A brief historical review of the former version of R.C. 4735.12, and case law decided thereunder, is required in order to establish that the General Assembly did not intend for punitive damages to be available under R.C. 4735.12 as amended. The previous statute required a real estate broker to maintain a bond to indemnify any person damaged by the broker’s failure to observe the law. This provision was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Seeley v. Expert, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. State of Ohio v. GlassOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Phillip Metropolitan Colored Methodist Episcopal Church v. Wahn-Evans & Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Vicario v. JenkinsOhio Court of Appeals · 1958
  5. Hesson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1937

1 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