Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc.

373 N.E.2d 1233, 53 Ohio St. 2d 171, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 319, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 511

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1288

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 373 N.E.2d 1233 (Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc., 373 N.E.2d 1233, 53 Ohio St. 2d 171, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 319, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 511 (Ohio 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

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]*172untary 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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]*172untary 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 N.E.2d 1233, 53 Ohio St. 2d 171, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 319, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-borchers-ford-inc-ohio-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack