The courts of common pleas, and municipal or county courts within their respective monetary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over any supplier with respect to any act or practice in this state covered by sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code, or with respect to any claim arising from a consumer transaction subject to such sections.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Delahunt v. Cytodyne Tech., 241 F. Supp. 2d 827 (S.D. Ohio 2003).
Delahunt v. Cytodyne Tech., 241 F. Supp. 2d 827 (S.D. Ohio 2003). · cites it 4ד04 states that: The courts of common pleas, and municipal or county courts within their respective monetary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over any supplier with respect to any act or practice in this state covered by sections 1345.”
Harvell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2006 OK 24 (Okla. 2007). · cites it 2ד[42] Ohio Rev.Code § 1345.04 provides: "The court of common pleas, and municipal or county courts within their respective monetary jurisdiction have jurisdiction over any supplier with respect to any act or practice in this state covered by sections 1345.”
Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 809 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). ““The fact that R.C. 1345.04 confers jurisdiction upon common pleas and municipal courts in cases arising under the CSPA does not preclude arbitration of such claims.”
Brooks v. Hurst Buick-Pontiac-Olds-Gmc, Inc., 491 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985). “This point of view as to actions under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act is reinforced by R.C. 1345.04 which provides as follows: “The courts of common pleas, and municipal or county courts within their respective monetary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over any supplier…”
Vincent v. Neyer, 745 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2דR.C. 1345.04. Such consumer may also seek a declaratory judgment, an injunction, or other appropriate relief against an act that violates R.”
Shorter v. Champion Home Builders Co., 776 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ohio 1991). · cites it 2דSection 1345.04 of the Consumer Sales Practices Act limits the subject matter jurisdiction.”
Hedeen v. Autos Direct Online, Inc., 2014 Ohio 4200 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). ““The fact that R.C. 1345.04 confers jurisdiction upon common pleas and municipal courts in cases arising under the CSPA does not preclude arbitration of such claims.”
Loreto v. Procter & Gamble Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 909 (S.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 2דOhio 2003); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1345.04. More recently, the U.”
Chesnut v. Progressive Cas. Ins., 850 N.E.2d 751 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “02(A) provides that “[n]o supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.”
Krueck v. Youngstown State Univ., 2019 Ohio 3219 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “]” R.C. 1345.04. {¶14} Three years after the CSPA’s enactment, the Court of Claims Act “established the Court of Claims, vesting it with ‘exclusive, original jurisdiction of all civil actions against the state permitted by the waiver of immunity contained in section 2743.”
New Hope Cmty. Church v. Patriot Energy Partners, L.L.C., 2013 Ohio 5882 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “* * * " 'The fact that R.C. 1345.04 confers jurisdiction upon common pleas and municipal courts in cases arising under the CSPA does not preclude arbitration of such claims.”
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.