Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield

Ohio Supreme Court

Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield

859 N.E.2d 556, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1417

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 27, 2006·No. 2006-2043·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Clermont App. No. CA2005-09-083, 2006-Ohio-4428. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Entry filed October 23, 2006:

“Should an appellate court apply a de novo or abuse of discretion standard of review when reviewing a trial court’s decision granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration where it is alleged that the arbitration clause is unconscionable?”

Pfeifer, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are Small v. HCF of Perrysburg, Inc., 159 Ohio App.3d 66, 2004-Ohio-5757, Sikes v. Ganley Pontiac Honda, Inc., et al, Cuyahoga App. No. 82889, 2004-0hio-155, Harper v. J.D. Byrider of Canton, 148 Ohio App.3d 122, 2002-Ohio-2657, and Cronin v. California Fitness, Franklin App. No. 04AP-1121, 2005-Ohio-3273.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-1890, Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, Clermont App. No. CA2005-09-083, 2006-Ohio-4428.

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

Clermont App. No. CA2005-09-083, 2006-Ohio-4428. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Entry filed October 23, 2006:

“Should an appellate court apply a de novo or abuse of discretion standard of review when reviewing a trial court’s decision granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration where it is alleged that the arbitration clause is unconscionable?”

Pfeifer, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are Small v. HCF of Perrysburg, Inc., 159 Ohio App.3d 66, 2004-Ohio-5757, Sikes v. Ganley Pontiac Honda, Inc., et al, Cuyahoga App. No. 82889, 2004-0hio-155, Harper v. J.D. Byrider of Canton, 148 Ohio App.3d 122, 2002-Ohio-2657, and Cronin v. California Fitness, Franklin App. No. 04AP-1121, 2005-Ohio-3273.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-1890, Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, Clermont App. No. CA2005-09-083, 2006-Ohio-4428.

Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 859 N.E.2d 556, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1417 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

859 N.E.2d 556 (Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related