As used in sections 1345.71 to 1345.78 of the Revised Code:
(A) "Consumer" means any of the following:
(1) The purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, of a motor vehicle;
(2) Any lessee of a motor vehicle in a contractual arrangement under which a charge is made for the use of the vehicle at a periodic rate for a term of thirty days or more, and title to the vehicle is in the name of a person other than the user;
(3) Any person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred during the duration of the express warranty that is applicable to the motor vehicle;
(4) Any other person who is entitled by the terms of the warranty to enforce the warranty.
(B) "Manufacturer" and "distributor" have the same meanings as in section 4517.01 of the Revised Code, and "manufacturer" includes a remanufacturer as defined in that section.
(C) "Express warranty" and "warranty" mean the written warranty of the manufacturer or distributor of a new motor vehicle concerning the condition and fitness for use of the vehicle, including any terms or conditions precedent to the enforcement of obligations under that warranty.
(D) "Motor vehicle" means any passenger car or noncommercial motor vehicle or those parts of any motor home that are not part of the permanently installed facilities for cold storage, cooking and consuming of food, and for sleeping but does not mean any mobile home or recreational vehicle, or any manufactured home as defined in section 3781.06 of the Revised Code.
(E) "Nonconformity" means any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle to the consumer and does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer or distributor.
(F) "Full purchase price" means both of the following:
(1) In the case of a sale, the contract price for the motor vehicle, including charges for transportation, undercoating, dealer-installed options and accessories, dealer services, dealer preparation, and delivery charges; all finance, credit insurance, warranty, and service contract charges incurred by the consumer; and all sales tax, license and registration fees, and other government charges.
(2) In the case of a lease, the capitalized cost reduction, security deposit, taxes, title fees, all monthly lease payments, the residual value of the vehicle, and all finance, credit insurance, warranty, and service contract charges incurred by the consumer.
(G) "Buyback" means a motor vehicle that has been replaced or repurchased by a manufacturer as the result of a court judgment, a determination of an informal dispute settlement mechanism, or a settlement agreed to by a consumer regardless of whether it is in the context of a court, an informal dispute settlement mechanism, or otherwise, in this or any other state, in which the consumer has asserted that the motor vehicle does not conform to the warranty, has presented documentation to establish that a nonconformity exists pursuant to section 1345.72 or 1345.73 of the Revised Code, and has requested replacement or repurchase of the vehicle.
(H) "Mobile home," "motor home," "noncommercial motor vehicle," "passenger car," and "recreational vehicle" have the same meanings as in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2007).
Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 7דCode; and two, as a matter of law, what constitutes a new motor vehicle, as that term is used in R.C. 1345.71 et seq., Ohio’s Nonconforming New Motor Vehicle Law, also known as the Lemon Law.”
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 3ד23, on behalf of a class of “all persons and entities who purchased or leased a vehicle from Defendants on or after August 15, 1988 and: (1) who have submitted claims under the Ohio Lemon Law Statute, R.C. § 1345.71 et seq.; (2) whose vehicles were determined to be nonconforming…”
Yommer v. Outdoor Enter., Inc., 711 N.E.2d 296 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8דAppellant Polaris timely filed its notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignment of error for our consideration: “The trial court erred when it held that the subject ATV is a ‘motor vehicle’ under R.C. § 1345.71 when the plain and unambiguous definition adopted by the…”
Dillow v. Mallard Coach Co., 615 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 19דThe Dillows’ complaint alleged several causes of action against Mallard Coach and the other defendants, including breach of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as violation of the Ohio Lemon Law, R.C. 1345.71 et seq. Mallard filed cross-claims against…”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6דOn December 9, 1993, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim against GMAC asserting that the vehicle was a nonconforming new motor vehicle pursuant to R.C. 1345.71 et. seq. In addition, on the same date, defendant filed a third-party complaint for breach of warranty and…”
Pertuset v. Ford Motor Co., 645 N.E.2d 1329 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 15דOn June 30, 1993, Pertuset sued Ford Motor Company under R.C. 1345.71 et seq., commonly called the Lemon Law.”
Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess Sch., 2022 Ohio 3586 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 2דWe concluded that a tenant may petition either the trial court or the court of appeals for “R.C. 5321.16(C) attorney fees that have been incurred on appeal.”
Iams v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 883 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4ד, which provides: (A) If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during…”
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2דThe Temples filed their original complaint in Ohio state court on September 28, 2001, alleging violations of the Ohio Lemon Law, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 1345.71—.77 (1998), the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“C.”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4דII Assignment of Error Number One The trial court erred in denying [Mercedes-Benz’s] motion for directed verdict and in entering the jury’s verdict in appellee’s favor, because appellee presented no objective evidence that his vehicle contained any defect constituting a…”
Collins v. Mullinax East, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4ד{¶ 1} This is an appeal taken from a judgment rendered by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas awarding appellee damages under Ohio’s Nonconforming New Motor Vehicle law, R.C. 1345.71 et seq., i.e., Ohio’s “Lemon Law.”
Pearn v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 772 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” {¶ 81} R.C. 1345.71(G) defines a “buyback” as “a motor vehicle that has been replaced or repurchased by a manufacturer as the result of a court judgment, a determination of an informal dispute settlement mechanism, or a settlement agreed to by a consumer regardless of whether…”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “On December 9, 1993, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim against GMAC asserting that the vehicle was a nonconforming new motor vehicle pursuant to R.C. 1345.71 et. seq. In addition, on the same date, defendant filed a third-party complaint for breach of warranty and…”
Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2007). “Code; and two, as a matter of law, what constitutes a new motor vehicle, as that term is used in R.C. 1345.71 et seq., Ohio’s Nonconforming New Motor Vehicle Law, also known as the Lemon Law.”
Pertuset v. Ford Motor Co., 645 N.E.2d 1329 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “On June 30, 1993, Pertuset sued Ford Motor Company under R.C. 1345.71 et seq., commonly called the Lemon Law.”
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). “The Temples filed their original complaint in Ohio state court on September 28, 2001, alleging violations of the Ohio Lemon Law, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 1345.71—.77 (1998), the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“C.”
Dillow v. Mallard Coach Co., 615 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “The Dillows’ complaint alleged several causes of action against Mallard Coach and the other defendants, including breach of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as violation of the Ohio Lemon Law, R.C. 1345.71 et seq. Mallard filed cross-claims against…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.71(D) — 3 cases
Dillow v. Mallard Coach Co., 615 N.E.2d 1076 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “The Dillows’ complaint alleged several causes of action against Mallard Coach and the other defendants, including breach of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as violation of the Ohio Lemon Law, R.C. 1345.71 et seq. Mallard filed cross-claims against…”
Yommer v. Outdoor Enter., Inc., 711 N.E.2d 296 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “Appellant Polaris timely filed its notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignment of error for our consideration: “The trial court erred when it held that the subject ATV is a ‘motor vehicle’ under R.C. § 1345.71 when the plain and unambiguous definition adopted by the…”
Iams v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 883 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “, which provides: (A) If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during…”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “II Assignment of Error Number One The trial court erred in denying [Mercedes-Benz’s] motion for directed verdict and in entering the jury’s verdict in appellee’s favor, because appellee presented no objective evidence that his vehicle contained any defect constituting a…”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “On December 9, 1993, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim against GMAC asserting that the vehicle was a nonconforming new motor vehicle pursuant to R.C. 1345.71 et. seq. In addition, on the same date, defendant filed a third-party complaint for breach of warranty and…”
Collins v. Mullinax East, Inc., 795 N.E.2d 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “{¶ 1} This is an appeal taken from a judgment rendered by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas awarding appellee damages under Ohio’s Nonconforming New Motor Vehicle law, R.C. 1345.71 et seq., i.e., Ohio’s “Lemon Law.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.71(G) — 2 cases
Pearn v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 772 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” {¶ 81} R.C. 1345.71(G) defines a “buyback” as “a motor vehicle that has been replaced or repurchased by a manufacturer as the result of a court judgment, a determination of an informal dispute settlement mechanism, or a settlement agreed to by a consumer regardless of whether…”
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.