Legal Opinion

Wagner v. Roche Laboratories

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1999No. 98-104PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

The principal issue presented is whether Roche was sufficiently prejudiced by the trial court’s instruction on breach of express warranty so that the trial court erred in denying Roche’s motion for a new trial. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on this issue and reinstate the judgment of the trial court denying a new trial to Roche.

“An express warranty is an affirmation of fact by the seller as to a product or commodity to induce the purchase thereof, on which affirmation the buyer relies in making the purchase.” Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rohde v. FarmerOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Smith v. FlesherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1946
  4. H. E. Culbertson Co. v. WardenOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Pulley v. MalekOhio Supreme Court · 1986

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Hayward v. Summa Health System/Akron City HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 2014

50 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