(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, it shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty if, during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation, whichever is earlier, any of the following apply:
(1) Substantially the same nonconformity has been subject to repair three or more times and either continues to exist or recurs;
(2) The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days;
(3) There have been eight or more attempts to repair any nonconformity;
(4) There has been at least one attempt to repair a nonconformity that results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, and the nonconformity either continues to exist or recurs.
(B)(1) Any period of time described in division (A) of this section shall be extended by any period of time during which the vehicle could not be reasonably repaired due to war, invasion, civil unrest, strike, fire, flood, or natural disaster.
(2) If an extension of time is necessitated under division (B)(1) of this section due to the conditions described in that division, the manufacturer shall arrange for the use of a vehicle for the consumer whose vehicle is out of service at no cost to the consumer. If the manufacturer utilizes or contracts with a motor vehicle dealer or other third party to provide the vehicle, the manufacturer shall reimburse the motor vehicle dealer or other third party at a reasonable rate for the use of the vehicle.
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 33דIn this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile.”
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 6ד73 provides: It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty if, during the period of one year following the date of original…”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 2001 Ohio 212 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 36ד{¶ 1} In this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile.”
Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 2ד” See, also, R.C. 1345.73. In this context, the General Assembly has chosen to include all vehicles that fit within its dual category description.”
Fagen v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., L.L.C., 2023 Ohio 4324 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11ד9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS The Vehicle Was Out of Service for More Than 30 Days {¶25} Next, Jaguar challenges the trial court’s finding that the vehicle “was out of service approximately 77 days,” which triggered the statutory presumption of recovery under R.C.…”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3ד*162 R.C. 1345.73 further elaborates upon the phrase “reasonable number of repair attempts” by creating a presumption in favor of the consumer in certain instances.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2דWith respect to what constitutes a reasonable number of repair attempts, R.C. 1345.73 provides: “It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable…”
Abele v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Ohio 1997). · cites it 2דOhio Rev.Code § 1345.73. None of the above conditions has been met in the case at bar.”
Iams v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 883 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “R.C. 1345.73. The Lemon Law, thus, has in some cases more stringent and specific standards than the MMWA.”
Diguglielmo v. FCA US, L.L.C., 2020 Ohio 2858 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “To aid in determining whether a reasonable number of repair attempts have been made, R.C. 1345.73(A) provides a presumption under certain circumstances: Except as provided in division (B) of this section, it shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been…”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer, 6 Misc. 3d 228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004). “, 266 Wis 2d 1060 , 668 NW2d 562 [2003] [table; text at 2003 WL 21537821 , *3, 2003 Wis App LEXIS 634, *13-14 (Wis Ct App, July 9, 2003)]; Ohio Rev Code Ann § 1345.73, and Reddin v Toyota Motor Distribs.”
Nearhouse v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 536 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2דThe legislature has enacted R.C. 1345.73, effective October 22, 1987.”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001). “In this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile.”
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). “73 provides: It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty if, during the period of one year following the date of original…”
Diguglielmo v. FCA US, L.L.C., 2020 Ohio 2858 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “To aid in determining whether a reasonable number of repair attempts have been made, R.C. 1345.73(A) provides a presumption under certain circumstances: Except as provided in division (B) of this section, it shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been…”
Fagen v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., L.L.C., 2023 Ohio 4324 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS The Vehicle Was Out of Service for More Than 30 Days {¶25} Next, Jaguar challenges the trial court’s finding that the vehicle “was out of service approximately 77 days,” which triggered the statutory presumption of recovery under R.C.…”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 2001 Ohio 212 (Ohio 2001). “{¶ 1} In this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile.”
Fagen v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., L.L.C., 2023 Ohio 4324 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS The Vehicle Was Out of Service for More Than 30 Days {¶25} Next, Jaguar challenges the trial court’s finding that the vehicle “was out of service approximately 77 days,” which triggered the statutory presumption of recovery under R.C.…”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001). “In this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile.”
Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 2001 Ohio 212 (Ohio 2001). “{¶ 1} In this case, we address Ohio’s Lemon Law, specifically the portion of R.C. 1345.73 that addresses whether a manufacturer has had a reasonable opportunity to repair a defective automobile.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “With respect to what constitutes a reasonable number of repair attempts, R.C. 1345.73 provides: “It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable…”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “*162 R.C. 1345.73 further elaborates upon the phrase “reasonable number of repair attempts” by creating a presumption in favor of the consumer in certain instances.”
Fagen v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., L.L.C., 2023 Ohio 4324 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS The Vehicle Was Out of Service for More Than 30 Days {¶25} Next, Jaguar challenges the trial court’s finding that the vehicle “was out of service approximately 77 days,” which triggered the statutory presumption of recovery under R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.73(B)(1) — 2 cases
Fagen v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., L.L.C., 2023 Ohio 4324 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS The Vehicle Was Out of Service for More Than 30 Days {¶25} Next, Jaguar challenges the trial court’s finding that the vehicle “was out of service approximately 77 days,” which triggered the statutory presumption of recovery under R.C.…”
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). “73 provides: It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty if, during the period of one year following the date of original…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.73(D) — 1 case
Temple v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 133 F. App'x 254 (6th Cir. 2005). “73 provides: It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty if, during the period of one year following the date of original…”
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.