Legal Opinion

Blust v. Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided August 7, 2009No. 22917PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Grady, Judge.

{¶ 1} In 1998, agents for Lamar Advertising Company who were engaged in erecting an advertising billboard on land abutting a farm owned by John and Jean Blust entered the Blusts’ property and removed a woodland growth of 34 trees that were growing wild.

{¶ 2} The Blusts commenced an action against Lamar on several claims for relief. Following a trial, the jury returned verdicts awarding the Blusts $32,000 in compensatory damages and $2,245,105 in punitive damages. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded the Blusts $88,250 for their attorney fees.

{¶ 3} Lamar moved…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State v. CarterOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Goldfuss v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Nolan v. NolanOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1994

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. GraweOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  2. Kooyman v. Staffco Construction, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. State v. WatkinsOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Couch v. Dayton Pain Ctr., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021
  5. Hocker v. HockerOhio Court of Appeals · 2010

1 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