Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1333
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.72 (2026)

Energy usage labels for new grain-drying equipment

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
June 29, 2011
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 9 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

No person shall sell, offer for sale, or install for use any new grain-drying equipment unless the equipment is labeled or accompanied by an operator's manual to indicate its energy usage to the prospective purchaser of the equipment. Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1973–1995 · leading case: In re Kerry Ford, Inc., 666 N.E.2d 1157 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Kerry Ford, Inc., 666 N.E.2d 1157 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995). · cites it 4× “Williams Ford asserts that the essence of the contractual rights, duties and obligations are the same under both R.C. 1333.72 and 4517.50, and that the latter statute merely reiterates and expounds upon the predecessor statute.”
Clifford Jacobs Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 357 F. Supp. 564 (S.D. Ohio 1973). · cites it 3× “” There can be little doubt that Sections 1333.72 and 1333.74 are retroactive or retrospective laws in that they enlarge contractual duties undertaken before the enactment of the statutes.”
Coulter Pontiac, Inc. v. Pontiac Motor Div., 446 N.E.2d 1128 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1981). “54 was enacted, prior Revised Code sections applicable to franchise terminations were either amended and renumbered or repealed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.72(H): 1 case
In re Kerry Ford, Inc., 666 N.E.2d 1157 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995). “Williams Ford asserts that the essence of the contractual rights, duties and obligations are the same under both R.C. 1333.72 and 4517.50, and that the latter statute merely reiterates and expounds upon the predecessor statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.