Richards v. Beecumont Volvo
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Doan, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, M. Richards, filed a complaint against defendants-appellees, Beechmont Volvo and Volvo of America, alleging that they had violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. Appellees each filed a counterclaim against Richards for attorney fees in which they alleged that Richards’s action was maintained in bad faith. Subsequently, both Richards and appellees filed motions for summary judgment.
The materials supporting and opposing the motions showed that Richards took her automobile for repairs at Beechmont Volvo in response to a recall notice by Volvo of America.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Brown v. Lyons, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1974
- Funk v. Montgomery amc/jeep/renaultOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Renner v. Derin Acquisition Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
- In re Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2004
- Tsirikos-Karapanos v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
- Morales v. Walker Motors Sales, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2000
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.