Prickett v. Foreign Exchange, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Hughes v. Miller

    72 Ohio App. 3d 633 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times
    In Hughes, the Supreme Court of Ohio instructed that consumer protection acts, such as the Odometer Act must be interpreted in a manner calculated to provide courts with flexibility in fashioning remedies.

    " The second case on point is Prickett v. The Foreign Exchange (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 236, 587 N.E.2d 972. In Prickett, plaintiff discovered, via a sticker in the door jamb of the car he had purchased from defendant, that a new odometer had been installed.

  2. State v. Burrell

    2008 Ohio 1785 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    The second sentence of R.C. 4549.46 provides an exception to strict liability where the inaccurate odometer was due to a previous owner's violation, unless it could be shown that the transferor had actual knowledge of the violation. Prickett v. The Foreign Exchange (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 236, 239. In 1987, the General Assembly amended the previous version of the statute by adding the language concerning reckless disregard of the facts.

  3. Proctor v. Kardassilaris

    2006 Ohio 2385 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    (Emphasis added.) {ยถ 18} Appellants cite three cases in support of their argument that the Rules of Civil Procedure should prevail over R.C. 5501.22: Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 221, Hiatt v. S. Health Facilities, Inc. (1994), 68 Ohio App.3d 236, and Graley v. Satazatham (1976), 74 O.O. 2d 316. However, even in their argument, appellants point out that all three cases denote that the Rules of Civil Procedure prevail over conflicting statutes on matters regarding procedure.

  4. Proctor v. Blank

    2006 Ohio 2386 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    (Emphasis added.) {ยถ 18} Appellants cite three cases in support of their argument that the Rules of Civil Procedure should prevail over R.C. 5501.22: Rockey v. 84 Lumber Co. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 221, Hiatt v. S. Health Facilities, Inc. (1994), 68 Ohio App.3d 236, and Graley v. Satazatham (1976), 74 O.O. 2d 316. However, even in their argument, appellants point out that all three cases denote that the Rules of Civil Procedure prevail over conflicting statutes on matters regarding procedure.

  5. Popovich v. S. Park Pontiac Subaru, Inc.

    123 Ohio App. 3d 364 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    While there are a number of reported cases construing R.C. 4549.46, the majority of these cases involved situations where it was shown that the odometer statement given by the transferor was incorrect. See State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Hughes (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 273, 569 N.E.2d 1059; Hughes v. Miller (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 633, 595 N.E.2d 960; Prickett v. Foreign Exchange, Inc. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 236, 587 N.E.2d 972; Baek v. Cincinnati (1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 158, 539 N.E.2d 1149. There are three cases which provide some support for appellant's position, but they are not conclusive.

  6. Hubbard v. Bob McDorman Chevrolet

    104 Ohio App. 3d 621 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 5 times
    Finding no violation of R.C. ยง 1345.02(B) where there was no evidence that "material misrepresentations were affirmatively made by appellee"

    Accordingly, many of the cases cited by appellee are not directly on point, insofar as they involve a prior owner's violation. See Prickett v. Foreign Exchange, Inc. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 236, 587 N.E.2d 972; Moon v. Miller (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 157, 601 N.E.2d 534. As noted by the court in Baker v. Hurst Buick (May 2, 1988), Warren App. No. CA86-08-054, unreported, 1988 WL 41486, proof of the statutory violation alone is sufficient to impose liability and one need not demonstrate any sort of fraudulent intent.

  7. Moon v. Miller

    77 Ohio App. 3d 157 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that although R.C. 4549.46 establishes a strict liability crime, it also contains a defense in the second sentence

    If that situation occurs, the second sentence of R.C. 4549.46 requires the consideration of the question of whether the owner being sued knew or recklessly disregarded facts indicating the violation by the previous owner. See Prickett v. The Foreign Exchange (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 236, 587 N.E.2d 972. See, also, Pazzelli v. Chuck Sypolt Chevrolet, Inc. (Nov. 26, 1990), Stark App. No. CA-8153, unreported, 1990 WL 187074.