The remedies in sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code, are in addition to remedies otherwise available for the same conduct under state or local law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Mid-Am. Acceptance Co. v. Lightle, 579 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
Mid-Am. Acceptance Co. v. Lightle, 579 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2דRather, exactly the opposite is expressly set forth in R.C. 1345.13, which provides: “The remedies in sections 1345.”
Charvat v. GVN Michigan, Inc., 531 F. Supp. 2d 922 (S.D. Ohio 2008). · cites it 2ד26, 1992) (noting that under O.R.C. § 1345.13, remedies provided by the CPRA “are explicitly in addition to remedies otherwise available for the same conduct under state or federal law.”
In re Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D.N.M. 2017). “61 Under rule 8(d), the Court will not dismiss the Plaintiffs' equitable claims at this stage, because rule 8(d)(3)'s plain language allows them. It reads: "A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.”
Williams v. Banner Buick, Inc., 574 N.E.2d 579 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “See R.C. 1345.13. Further, allowing the moving party to forgo his remedy election would prejudice the defendant, since an action in rescission and one in money damages are different and inconsistent remedies as a matter of law.”
Elder v. Fischer, 717 N.E.2d 730 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “R.C. 1345.13. 33 . Note, H.B. 600: Ohio's Bill of Rights for Nursing Home Patients (1980), 5 U.”
Hanlin v. Ohio Builders & Remodelers, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 572 (S.D. Ohio 2001). “01 - § 1345.13. Defendant asserts that the CSPA is inapplicable to the transaction at issue.”
Deegan & McGarry v. Med-Cor, 708 N.E.2d 1029 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “It should be pointed out here that the enactment of CSPA has not limited the remedies available to these plaintiffs, in that R.C. 1345.13 specifically provides: “The remedies in Sections 1345.”
Searles v. Germain Ford of Columbus, L.L.C., 883 N.E.2d 480 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “09(B) of (a) rescinding the transaction or recovering three times her actual damages or $200, whichever is greater, or (b) recovering damages or other appropriate relief in a class action under Civ.”
Eisert v. Kantner Constr., 2010 Ohio 4815 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “Despite its clearly pro- consumer stance, the Act was not intended to encompass all aspects or breaches of consumer sales agreements but was instead directed specifically toward deficiencies in common law consumer remedial protections, which forced consumers to endure the…”
Shehee v. Kings Furniture, 2024 Ohio 2379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “On the other hand, the statute of limitations for Counts Three and Five had not expired, and possibly had not expired as to Count Four to the extent that common law fraud applied.”
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.