car violation in Ohio

2010An appellate court reviewing the grant of summary judgment must follow the standards set forth in Civ.R. 56(C). “[T]he reviewing court evaluates the record * * * in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. * * * [T]he motion must be overruled if reasonable minds could find for the party opposing the motion.” Saunders v. McFaul (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 46, 50 , 593 N.E.2d 24 . {¶ 30} In the present case, appellees argue that Alan Spitzer was put on notice, through significant prior litigation, 2 that a “dealer overhead” fee paid in addition to the advertised price of a car was a violation o

2010An appellate court reviewing the grant of summary judgment must follow the standards set forth in Civ.R. 56(C). “[T]he reviewing court evaluates the record * * * in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. * * * [T]he motion must be overruled if reasonable minds could find for the party opposing the motion.” Saunders v. McFaul (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 46, 50 , 593 N.E.2d 24 . {¶ 30} In the present case, appellees argue that Alan Spitzer was put on notice, through significant prior litigation, 2 that a “dealer overhead” fee paid in addition to the advertised price of a car was a violation o

2001In Pierson v. Tom Harrigan Oldsmobile-Nissan, Inc., (Sept. 16, 1991), Montgomery App. No. 12411, unreported, this court held that a pattern of inefficiency and incompetency in repairing a car can be a violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, specifically R.C. 1345.03 (A), citing Brown v. Lyons (1974), 43 Ohio Misc. 14 , 25 , 72 O.Ops2d 216, 220.

2000Tanner and Starnes , supra; Maumee v. Gabriel (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 60 , 518 N.E.2d 558 .

2000Tanner and Starnes , supra; Maumee v. Gabriel (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 60 , 518 N.E.2d 558 .

1999See Williams, supra at 42-43, 619 N.E.2d at 1144 -1145 ; Gullett, supra at 144-145, 604 N.E.2d at 180 -181 .

1999See State v. Kennedy (Sept. 30, 1999), Ross App. No. 99CA2472, unreported, at fn. 4; but, see, State v. Wilhelm (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 444 (summarily reversing State v. Wilhelm [Apr. 14, 1997], Butler App. No. CA96-12-272, unreported, on authority of Erickson lower court case had held that crossing right edge line three times did not constitute violation of R.C. 4511.33 that would justify traffic stop); State v. Rusnak (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 24 , 28 (motor home's drifting one and a half feet off right side of roadway was violation of R.C. 4511.33 ); State v. Denton-Boyer (May 26, 1998), Clermo

1999See State v. Kennedy (Sept. 30, 1999), Ross App. No. 99CA2472, unreported, at fn. 4; but, see, State v. Wilhelm (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 444 (summarily reversing State v. Wilhelm [Apr. 14, 1997], Butler App. No. CA96-12-272, unreported, on authority of Erickson lower court case had held that crossing right edge line three times did not constitute violation of R.C. 4511.33 that would justify traffic stop); State v. Rusnak (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 24 , 28 (motor home's drifting one and a half feet off right side of roadway was violation of R.C. 4511.33 ); State v. Denton-Boyer (May 26, 1998), Clermo

1935Counsel for defendant cite the following cases in support of their claim of contributory negligence as a matter of law: Railway Company v Skinner, 127 Oh St 69; Wiese v Bolzer, 148 NW, 113 ; Jennings v Delaney, 224 N. Y.