Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc.

402 N.E.2d 527, 62 Ohio St. 2d 1, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 1, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 677
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 50 Ohio St. 2d 38
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided April 2, 1980·No. Nos. 79-159 and 79-178·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Court of Appeals found that the issue before it was whether the Attorney General was required to request assurance of voluntary compliance prior to independently instituting this action for alleged violation of R. C. 1345.01 et seq. The court determined that the only relief sought by the Attorney General in his complaint was an injunction. For that reason, the Court of Appeals held, “the Attorney General was not required to request assurance of voluntary compliance prior to filing this action,” and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint.4

We agree. R. C. 1345.06 clearly provided that, where injunction is the sole relief sought, prior request for written assurance of voluntary compliance is not required. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Lynch, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur. Lynch, J., of the Seventh Appellate District, sitting for Sweeney, J.

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

Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc., 402 N.E.2d 527, 62 Ohio St. 2d 1, 16 Ohio Op. 3d 1, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 677 (Ohio 1980).

402 N.E.2d 527 (Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.