Reichert v. Ingersoll
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The determinative issue presented in this appeal is whether rescission is a proper remedy under the Ohio Consumer Sales *222Practices Act, where there has been a substantial change in the subject of the consumer transaction.
Before we address the merits of that issue, we must first inquire as to whether the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration and supplementation of the trial court transcript. The appellate court refused to consider appellant’s assignments of error challenging the appropriateness of rescission as a remedy in this case because the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1978
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- DeHart v. Aetna Life InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Yungwirth v. McAvoyOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Cobb v. CobbOhio Supreme Court · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by83 opinions
- State v. SchiebelOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. Moore (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Astorhurst Land Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- O'Connell v. Chesapeake & Ohio RailroadOhio Supreme Court · 1991
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.