90 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 27 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tsirikos-Karapanos v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2026Upon review, we find that there is no evidence that Lawrence personally committed, directed, participated in, or cooperated in any act that violated the CSPA as “unfair or deceptive.” See Tsirikos-Karapanos v. Ford Motor Co., 2017-Ohio-8487, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.), quoting Warren v. Denes Concrete, Inc., 2009-Ohio-2784 , ¶ 23 (9th Dist.) (‘“A CSPA claim will not be successful unless the [defendant’s] performance amounted to a deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable act.’”). 2026Upon review, we find that there is no evidence that Lawrence personally committed, directed, participated in, or cooperated in any act that violated the CSPA as “unfair or deceptive.” See Tsirikos-Karapanos v. Ford Motor Co., 2017-Ohio-8487, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.), quoting Warren v. Denes Concrete, Inc., 2009-Ohio-2784 , ¶ 23 (9th Dist.) (‘“A CSPA claim will not be successful unless the [defendant’s] performance amounted to a deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable act.’”). | 3 | 3 |
Cartwright v. Beverly Hills Floorsgreen2 sentences2017Mahoning No. 11 MA 109, 2013-Ohio-2266 , 2013 WL 2423185 ("[N]ot every breach of contract constitutes a CSPA violation, however 'when a supplier knowingly commits a breach, the breach is likely also an unfair or deceptive act.' "); Brown v. Lyons , 43 Ohio Misc. 14 , 332 N.E.2d 380 (C.P.1974) ("Ohio courts have held that a manufacturer's failure to repair a defect covered by a warranty can amount to a violation of the CSPA."). 2017Mahoning No. 11 MA 109, 2013-Ohio-2266 , 2013 WL 2423185 ("[N]ot every breach of contract constitutes a CSPA violation, however 'when a supplier knowingly commits a breach, the breach is likely also an unfair or deceptive act.' "); Brown v. Lyons , 43 Ohio Misc. 14 , 332 N.E.2d 380 (C.P.1974) ("Ohio courts have held that a manufacturer's failure to repair a defect covered by a warranty can amount to a violation of the CSPA."). | 2 | 4 |
Averback v. Montrose Ford, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Averback v. Montrose Ford, Inc., 2019-Ohio-373 (9th Dist.) (holding that the 26 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS consumer failed to present sufficient evidence of actual economic damages based on a dealership’s violation of the CSPA for failing to appropriately disclose a defect that was repaired prior to the sale of the vehicle to the consumer, despite the fact that the asserted damages arose from the CSPA violation, where the consumer only presented evidence of damages consistent with reliance damages, i.e., out-of-pocket expenses in performing the contract, which were inappropriate 2025See Averback v. Montrose Ford, Inc., 2019-Ohio-373 (9th Dist.) (holding that the 26 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS consumer failed to present sufficient evidence of actual economic damages based on a dealership’s violation of the CSPA for failing to appropriately disclose a defect that was repaired prior to the sale of the vehicle to the consumer, despite the fact that the asserted damages arose from the CSPA violation, where the consumer only presented evidence of damages consistent with reliance damages, i.e., out-of-pocket expenses in performing the contract, which were inappropriate | 2 | 2 |
Tanner v. Tom Harrigan Chrysler Plymouth, Inc.green2 sentences2000See Tanner, 82 Ohio App.3d at 765-766 , 613 N.E.2d at 650 . 2000See Tanner, 82 Ohio App.3d at 765-766 , 613 N.E.2d at 650 . | 2 | 2 |
Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc.green2 sentences2026Recovery of attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) is limited to “work reasonably performed on the CSPA claim.” Estate of Shury, 2024-Ohio-2066, at ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Bittner, 58 Ohio St.3d 143 . 2026Recovery of attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) is limited to “work reasonably performed on the CSPA claim.” Estate of Shury, 2024-Ohio-2066, at ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Bittner, 58 Ohio St.3d 143 . | 1 | 11 |
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.green2 sentences2014Id. {¶47} But where a consumer’s CSPA claim is subject to binding arbitration, limitations on a consumer’s rights should not be allowed by a private arbitration forum. 2014Id. {¶47} But where a consumer’s CSPA claim is subject to binding arbitration, limitations on a consumer’s rights should not be allowed by a private arbitration forum. | 1 | 3 |
Lester v. FCA US, L.L.C.green2 sentences2025NEP also argues that appellants have presented no evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on their CSPA claim. {¶ 13} The trial court stated that, “[f]or conduct to be deceptive under the CSPA, it must be both false and material to the consumer transaction.” (Sept. 27, 2024 Decision & Entry at 13, citing Anderson v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc., 2021-Ohio-693, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.), Grgat v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2019-Ohio-4582 , ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), and Lester v. FCA US L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-1776, ¶ 37 (1st Dist.).) The trial court then focused its analysis on the element of ma 2025BMW primarily relies on Lester v. FCA US LLC, 2022-Ohio-1776 (1st Dist.), in support of its position; in so doing, it maintains that Lester is “dispositive” and “[d]irectly on [p]oint[.]” {¶26} We cannot say that BMW has met its burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying the motion for JNOV. | 1 | 2 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2015An abuse of discretion “implies that the 20 court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶44} First, pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(5), the Prices argue that they are entitled to a new trial because the jury only awarded $20,000 on their negligence claim, and $38,311.62 on their CSPA claim, when KNL “admitted” through its experts to owing $55,010 in damages. 2009Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 . {¶ 26} We begin by noting that the trial court rendered summary judgment against Lasson on the CSPA claim on December 7, 2006. | 1 | 2 |
Baker v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correctiongreen2 sentences2026See Neil at ¶ 11 , citing Baker v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 144 Ohio App.3d 740, 744 (4th Dist. 2001). {¶ 15} In this court’s view, liberally reading a pro se complaint to assert claims for relief when the language in the complaint allows for such a reading is a much different scenario than reading Williams’ two-sentence complaint as raising a CSPA claim against U.S. National. 2026See Neil at ¶ 11 , citing Baker v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 144 Ohio App.3d 740, 744 (4th Dist. 2001). {¶ 15} In this court’s view, liberally reading a pro se complaint to assert claims for relief when the language in the complaint allows for such a reading is a much different scenario than reading Williams’ two-sentence complaint as raising a CSPA claim against U.S. National. | 1 | 1 |
Rayco Mfg., Inc. v. Murphy, Rogers, Sloss & Gambelgreen1 sentence2026It does, however, create a tort 2 We further decline appellants’ invitation to “follow the advisory mandate of the jury and conclude that any CSPA violation was not the proximate cause of any damages, and that there was also no breach of contract by Weaver Construction.” (Appellants’ brief at p. 16.) In “a bench trial with an advisory jury pursuant to Civ.R. 39(C)(1) . . . [t]he advisory jury [is] not the factfinder[.]” Rayco Mfg. v. Murphy, Rogers, Sloss & Gambel, 2019-Ohio-3756, ¶ 74 (8th Dist.). which imposes personal liability upon corporate officers for violations of the act performed by | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Shury v. Cusatogreen2 sentences2026Recovery of attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) is limited to “work reasonably performed on the CSPA claim.” Estate of Shury, 2024-Ohio-2066, at ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Bittner, 58 Ohio St.3d 143 . 2026Recovery of attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) is limited to “work reasonably performed on the CSPA claim.” Estate of Shury, 2024-Ohio-2066, at ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Bittner, 58 Ohio St.3d 143 . | 1 | 1 |
| Younker v. Hayesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| ABV Corp. v. Cantorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wuerth v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Anderson v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Summa Health System v. Viningregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Byers Volvogreen | 1 | 1 |
Hansel v. Creative Concrete & Masonry Construction Co.green1 sentence2025Bd. of Health v. Pauer, 2003-Ohio-6740, ¶ 20-21 (11th Dist.) (because a voluntary dismissal without prejudice “is not an adjudication upon the merits,” and thus “there is no prevailing party when a claim is voluntarily dismissed,” appellant’s voluntary dismissal of administrative appeal did not render appellee a prevailing party and trial court “had no authority” to award costs to either party after matter was voluntarily dismissed); Hansel at 60 (once appellants’ claim under the Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”) was voluntarily dismissed, appellee was not entitled to attorney fees “becaus | 1 | 1 |
| Geauga County Board of Health v. Pauer, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2003)green | 1 | 1 |
| Zara Constr., Inc. v. Belcastrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Hawley Gen. Contracting, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Durnell's RV Sales, Inc. v. Becklergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. First Choice Auto Clinic, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kent State Univ. v. Manleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Deffren v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pep Boys-Manny v. Vaughn, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| Eckman v. Columbia Oldsmobile, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bierlein v. Alex's Continental Inn, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Whitt v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Ajibola v. Ohio Med. Career College, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| Mid-America Acceptance Co. v. Lightlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Albert v. Boatsmith Marine Service & Storage, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Roberts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Horrisberger v. Mohlmastergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. Ellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Riverside v. Riveragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc.green2 sentences2026Recovery of attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) is limited to “work reasonably performed on the CSPA claim.” Estate of Shury, 2024-Ohio-2066, at ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Bittner, 58 Ohio St.3d 143 . 2026Recovery of attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) is limited to “work reasonably performed on the CSPA claim.” Estate of Shury, 2024-Ohio-2066, at ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Bittner, 58 Ohio St.3d 143 . | 1 | 11 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. I&F Insulation Co.
green
2 sentences2007"One of its purposes is to make `private enforcement of the CSPA attractive to consumers who otherwise might not be able to afford or justify the cost of prosecuting an alleged CSPA violation, which, in turn, works to discourage CSPA violations in the first place via the threat of liability for damages and attorney fees.'" Id., quoting Parker v. I F Insulation Co., Inc. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 261 , 268 . {¶ 23} The Whitaker court noted "that statutory damages in the amount of $200 are an alternative to actual damages, and, thus, $200 is the minimum award for a CSPA violation under R.C. 1345.09 2007"One of its purposes is to make `private enforcement of the CSPA attractive to consumers who otherwise might not be able to afford or justify the cost of prosecuting an alleged CSPA violation, which, in turn, works to discourage CSPA violations in the first place via the threat of liability for damages and attorney fees.'" Id., quoting Parker v. I F Insulation Co., Inc. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 261 , 268 . {¶ 23} The Whitaker court noted "that statutory damages in the amount of $200 are an alternative to actual damages, and, thus, $200 is the minimum award for a CSPA violation under R.C. 1345.09 | 3 | 2006–2026 |
Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2018Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co. , 48 Ohio St.3d 27 , 29, 548 N.E.2d 933 (1990) ; Ganson v. Vaughn , 135 Ohio App.3d 689 , 692, 735 N.E.2d 483 (1st Dist.1999). {¶ 12} R.C. 1345.09(A) states that upon proving a CSPA violation, "the consumer may * * * rescind the transaction or recover the consumer's actual economic damages plus an amount not exceeding five thousand dollars in noneconomic damages." R.C. 1345.09(G) defines "actual economic damages" as "damages for direct, incidental, or consequential pecuniary losses resulting from a violation of Chapter 1345 of the Revised Code and does not include dam 2018Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co. , 48 Ohio St.3d 27 , 29, 548 N.E.2d 933 (1990) ; Ganson v. Vaughn , 135 Ohio App.3d 689 , 692, 735 N.E.2d 483 (1st Dist.1999). {¶ 12} R.C. 1345.09(A) states that upon proving a CSPA violation, "the consumer may * * * rescind the transaction or recover the consumer's actual economic damages plus an amount not exceeding five thousand dollars in noneconomic damages." R.C. 1345.09(G) defines "actual economic damages" as "damages for direct, incidental, or consequential pecuniary losses resulting from a violation of Chapter 1345 of the Revised Code and does not include dam | 3 | 2006–2018 |
Montoney v. Lincoln Logs, Unpublished Decision (1-23-2007)
green
2 sentences2016Franklin No. 06AP-284, 2007-Ohio-236, ¶ 26 . “‘[A] CSPA violation may occur before, during, or after the underlying consumer transaction.’” Id. 2016Franklin No. 06AP-284, 2007-Ohio-236, ¶ 26 . “‘[A] CSPA violation may occur before, during, or after the underlying consumer transaction.’” Id. | 3 | 2008–2016 |
Hensley v. Eckerhart
green
2 sentences2024Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 145 , 569 N.E.2d 464 (1991), citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). 2024Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 145 , 569 N.E.2d 464 (1991), citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Marshall v. Aaron
green
2 sentences2023They assert that Marshall v. Aaron, 15 Ohio St.3d 48, 51 , 472 N.E.2d 335 (1984) stands for the proposition that “a court may not sua sponte enter summary judgment on [a] basis not raised by Motion of a party.” (Emphasis sic.) (Appellants’ Brief, 4). {¶31} However, as the appellee notes on appeal, the Becklers’ argument relies on “an overreading of Marshall.” Appellee’s Brief, 8. 2023They assert that Marshall v. Aaron, 15 Ohio St.3d 48, 51 , 472 N.E.2d 335 (1984) stands for the proposition that “a court may not sua sponte enter summary judgment on [a] basis not raised by Motion of a party.” (Emphasis sic.) (Appellants’ Brief, 4). {¶31} However, as the appellee notes on appeal, the Becklers’ argument relies on “an overreading of Marshall.” Appellee’s Brief, 8. | 2 | 2004–2023 |
Reichert v. Ingersoll
green
2 sentences2023R.C. 1345.09(C)(1) states rescission is only an appropriate remedy under the CSPA “within a reasonable time” after discovery of the grounds for it and before “there has been a substantial change in the subject of the consumer transaction.” Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 224 , 480 N.E.2d 802 (1985). 1999Although recission was not available to the Keibers, because a substantial change had occurred in the nature of the transaction, see Richert v. Ingersoll (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 220 , they recovered treble damages on their CSPA claim. | 2 | 1999–2023 |
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp.
green
2 sentences2021When these examples and considerations are considered together, "the CSPA defines "unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices" as those that mislead consumers about the nature of the product they are receiving, while "unconscionable acts or practices" relate to a supplier manipulating a consumer's understanding of the nature of the transaction at issue." Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2005-Ohio-4985 , ¶ 24. {¶27} Unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices constitute a CSPA violation whether they occur before, during, or after the consumer transaction. 2021When these examples and considerations are considered together, "the CSPA defines "unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices" as those that mislead consumers about the nature of the product they are receiving, while "unconscionable acts or practices" relate to a supplier manipulating a consumer's understanding of the nature of the transaction at issue." Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2005-Ohio-4985 , ¶ 24. {¶27} Unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices constitute a CSPA violation whether they occur before, during, or after the consumer transaction. | 2 | 2008–2021 |
Lubanovich v. McGlocklin
green
2 sentences2019Id. {¶35} If the CSPA violation has been declared a deceptive or unconscionable act or practice by a rule promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to R.C. 1345.05(B)(2), or if a court order, made available for public inspection, had determined that a specific act or practice violated R.C. 1345.02, R.C. 1345.03, or R.C. 1345.031, then the consumer may either 1) rescind the transaction, or 2) recover treble damages of the amount of the actual economic damages or $200, whichever is greater, plus noneconomic damages up to five thousand dollars. 2019Id. {¶35} If the CSPA violation has been declared a deceptive or unconscionable act or practice by a rule promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to R.C. 1345.05(B)(2), or if a court order, made available for public inspection, had determined that a specific act or practice violated R.C. 1345.02, R.C. 1345.03, or R.C. 1345.031, then the consumer may either 1) rescind the transaction, or 2) recover treble damages of the amount of the actual economic damages or $200, whichever is greater, plus noneconomic damages up to five thousand dollars. | 2 | 2015–2019 |
Brown v. Lyons
green
2 sentences2017Mahoning No. 11 MA 109, 2013-Ohio-2266 , 2013 WL 2423185 ("[N]ot every breach of contract constitutes a CSPA violation, however 'when a supplier knowingly commits a breach, the breach is likely also an unfair or deceptive act.' "); Brown v. Lyons , 43 Ohio Misc. 14 , 332 N.E.2d 380 (C.P.1974) ("Ohio courts have held that a manufacturer's failure to repair a defect covered by a warranty can amount to a violation of the CSPA."). 2017Mahoning No. 11 MA 109, 2013-Ohio-2266 , 2013 WL 2423185 ("[N]ot every breach of contract constitutes a CSPA violation, however 'when a supplier knowingly commits a breach, the breach is likely also an unfair or deceptive act.' "); Brown v. Lyons , 43 Ohio Misc. 14 , 332 N.E.2d 380 (C.P.1974) ("Ohio courts have held that a manufacturer's failure to repair a defect covered by a warranty can amount to a violation of the CSPA."). | 2 | 2002–2017 |
Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2016In support, appellant cites Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 157 Ohio App.3d 150 , 2004-Ohio-829 (9th Dist.), a case dealing with an arbitration clause. 2016In support, appellant cites Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 157 Ohio App.3d 150 , 2004-Ohio-829 (9th Dist.), a case dealing with an arbitration clause. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2013In other words, the Felixes’ CSPA claim is not premised on allegations that Ganley failed to properly integrate prior “statements, representations[,] or promises” made to induce the Felixes and other class members to purchase vehicles — the conduct regulated by Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(22) — rather, the Felixes contend that inclusion of the arbitration provision in the sales agreement violated the CSPA because (1) the language of the arbitration provision was ambiguous, confusing, and misleading, (2) the provision failed to provide accurate and complete information about the arbitration pro 2013In other words, the Felixes’ CSPA claim is not premised on allegations that Ganley failed to properly integrate prior “statements, representations[,] or promises” made to induce the Felixes and other class members to purchase vehicles — the conduct regulated by Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(22) — rather, the Felixes contend that inclusion of the arbitration provision in the sales agreement violated the CSPA because (1) the language of the arbitration provision was ambiguous, confusing, and misleading, (2) the provision failed to provide accurate and complete information about the arbitration pro | 2 | 2009–2013 |
Williams v. Aetna Finance Co.
green
2 sentences2012Co. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 464, 475 , 700 N.E.2d 859 , citing Gosden v. Louis (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 219 , 687 N.E.2d 481 . {¶ 64} In the case sub judice, we have determined that no genuine issues of material fact remain regarding appellants’ CSPA claim and that appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2004The Supreme Court found significant the fact that the Patterson court’s clause required a consumer to “prepay a substantial amount of fees as a condition precedent to arbitration.” Williams, 83 Ohio St.3d at 473 , 700 N.E.2d 859 . {¶ 44} Similarly, the Tenth District Court of Appeals, addressing a CSPA claim arising from a consumer’s purchase of a motor vehicle, remanded the case to the trial court to determine the issue of whether the arbitration clause in that purchase contract was unconscionable. | 2 | 2004–2012 |
Fletcher v. Don Foss of Cleveland, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Fletcher v. Don Foss of Cleveland, Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 82, 88 , 628 N.E.2d 60 . 2009Fletcher v. Don Foss of Cleveland, Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 82, 88 , 628 N.E.2d 60 . | 2 | 1999–2009 |
Karst v. Goldberg
green
2 sentences2008Karst v. Goldberg (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 413 , 418 , 623 N.E.2d 1348 . {¶ 48} In order to establish a CSPA violation, the court must determine that the transaction between the parties was one to which the CSPA applied. 2008Karst v. Goldberg (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 413 , 418 , 623 N.E.2d 1348 . {¶ 48} In order to establish a CSPA violation, the court must determine that the transaction between the parties was one to which the CSPA applied. | 2 | 2002–2008 |
Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Automotive, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 177 , 2006-Ohio-5481 , 855 N.E.2d 825 , the court held: {¶ 54} “R.C. 1345.09(A)’s use of the unmodified term ‘damages’ seems to allow for an award of punitive damages for a CSPA violation committed with actual malice. 2007Automotive, Inc. (2006), 111 Ohio St.3d 177 , 2006-Ohio-5481 , at ¶ 24 (" Whitaker II ). {¶ 8} Non-economic damages in the context of CSPA claim have included "damages for inconvenience, aggravation, frustration, and humiliation for misrepresentations;" Whitaker II at ¶ 20, citing Damask v. Modern Communications, Ltd. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire
green
2 sentences2026The trial court, citing Einhorn, specifically noted that the CSPA “gives a court discretion to award attorney’s fees[.]” (Emphasis added.) This is why appellants’ citations to cases such as Griffin Contracting & Restoration v. McIntyre, 2018-Ohio-3121 (12th Dist.), and Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire, 2017-Ohio-7213 (12th Dist.), are inapposite. 2026The trial court, citing Einhorn, specifically noted that the CSPA “gives a court discretion to award attorney’s fees[.]” (Emphasis added.) This is why appellants’ citations to cases such as Griffin Contracting & Restoration v. McIntyre, 2018-Ohio-3121 (12th Dist.), and Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire, 2017-Ohio-7213 (12th Dist.), are inapposite. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Griffin Contracting & Restoration v. McIntyre
green
2 sentences2026The trial court, citing Einhorn, specifically noted that the CSPA “gives a court discretion to award attorney’s fees[.]” (Emphasis added.) This is why appellants’ citations to cases such as Griffin Contracting & Restoration v. McIntyre, 2018-Ohio-3121 (12th Dist.), and Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire, 2017-Ohio-7213 (12th Dist.), are inapposite. 2026The trial court, citing Einhorn, specifically noted that the CSPA “gives a court discretion to award attorney’s fees[.]” (Emphasis added.) This is why appellants’ citations to cases such as Griffin Contracting & Restoration v. McIntyre, 2018-Ohio-3121 (12th Dist.), and Sterling Constr., Inc. v. Alkire, 2017-Ohio-7213 (12th Dist.), are inapposite. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
green
1 sentence2026Corp., 2002-Ohio-2480, ¶ 4-5 . {¶ 9} After independently reviewing Williams’ complaint, we find that, even when construing all reasonable inferences in favor of Williams, the complaint does not state a claim for a CSPA violation or any other claim for that matter. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Firelands Regional Med. Ctr. v. Jeavons, E-07-068 (9-30-2008) green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Williams v. Gray Guy Group, L.L.C. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Warman v. Select Auto green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Monroe v. Forum Health green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Deegan & McGarry v. Med-Cor green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Tisdale v. Direct Detail neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Ferron v. Dish Network, L.L.C. neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Logan v. Access Ohio, L.L.C. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Tavtigian v. Foster neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Robinson v. McDougal green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Phillips v. Andy Buick, Inc., Unpublished Decision (11-3-2006) neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Ganson v. Vaughn green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Anderson v. Barclay's Capital Real Estate, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Semco, Inc. v. Sims Bros., Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Thomas v. Sun Furniture & Appliance Co. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Price v. KNL Custom Homes, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Varavvas v. Mullet Cabinets, Inc. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Eastley v. Volkman green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hughes v. Calabrese green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Atelier Design, Inc. v. Campbell green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Hughes v. Calabrese green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.