TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc.

Brown, Attorney General v. Borchers Ford, Inc.

Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc., 373 N.E.2d 1233 (Ohio 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1978
Docket
No. 77-1288
Judges
Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney
Citations
373 N.E.2d 123353 Ohio St. 2d 1717 Ohio Op. 3d 3191978 Ohio LEXIS 511

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals as a result of our remand of the cause to that court in Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 38 . (The facts are adequately set forth therein.) This remand was necessitated because this court will not resolve immaterial conflicts (see Pincelli v. Ohio Bridge Corp. [1966], 5 Ohio St. 2d 41 ), and consideration by the Court of Appeals as to whether the Attorney General is required to request assurance of voluntary compliance when he, investigates consumer fraud on his own initiative, under R. C. 1345.07, could be determinative of this action. The propriety of the Court of Appeals’ certification based upon the existence of the conflict between the judgments of the Courts of Appeals on the necessity of requesting assurance of vol *172 untary compliance, under R. O. 1345.06, could not therefore be ascertained absent the Court of Appeals’ consideration of R. C. 1345.07.

Accordingly, since this court finds that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear and decide the specific question remanded and that the court failed, upon our prior remand, to consider the effect of R. C. 1345.07, the motion to certify the record is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judgment reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., dissents.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1982: 11984: 12009: 119822026peak 1982 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Jones909 N.E.2d 191 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
  2. Dougherty v. Torrence461 N.E.2d 1310 (Ohio 1984)
  3. State v. Mabry449 N.E.2d 16 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)

Most recent

  1. State v. Jones909 N.E.2d 191 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
  2. Dougherty v. Torrence461 N.E.2d 1310 (Ohio 1984)
  3. State v. Mabry449 N.E.2d 16 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Pincelli v. Ohio Bridge Corp., 213 N.E.2d 356 (Ohio 1966) 49
Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc., 361 N.E.2d 1063 (Ohio 1977) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list