Legal Opinion

Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1991No. 89-2009PublishedCited by 268 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

At the outset, we reject the contention that the amount of attorney fees awarded pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F) must bear a direct relationship to the dollar amount of the settlement, between the consumer and the supplier. The Act was amended in 1978 to include the payment of attorney fees “* * * to prevent unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts and practices, to provide strong and effective remedies, both public and private, to assure that consumers will recover any damages caused by such acts and practices, and to eliminate any monetary incentives for suppliers to engage in such acts and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. City of Riverside v. RiveraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Brooks v. Hurst Buick-Pontiac-Olds-Gmc, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1985

3Cited by268 opinions

  1. Thomas v. City of ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. Landis v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Davis v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company Of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
  4. Yellowbook Inc. v. Steven BrandeberryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
  5. Phoenix Lighting Group, L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Group, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020

263 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