Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Allis-Chalmers Credit Corp. v. Herbolt

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 31, 1984No. Nos. CA83-10-011 and -012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJones, J.

I concur with my colleagues in reversing this case on the first and fourth assignments of error, for the reasons stated, namely that summary judgment was improper because there were questions of fact with respect to the date when the four-year statute of limitations began to run. I also concur that the second assignment of error has no merit.

I dissent with the majority which finds that the third assignment of error is well-taken with respect to the granting of summary judgment to Allis-Chalmers Credit Corporation. I cannot accept the majority’s view that the Retail Installment Sales Act…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mid-Wood, Inc. v. DigbyOhio Court of Appeals · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API