109 Ohio App. 3d 583 - Janos v. Murduck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; (2) That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not; (3) That the subject of a consumer transaction is new, or unused, if it is not; (4) That the subject of a consumer transaction is available to the consumer for a reason that does not exist; (5) That the subject of a consumer transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation, if it has not, except that the act of a supplier in furnishing similar merchandise of equal or greater value as a good faith substitute does not violate this section; (6) That the subject of a consumer transaction will be supplied in greater quantity than the supplier intends; (7) That replacement or repair is needed, if it is not; (8) That a specific price advantage exists, if it does not; (9) That the supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that the supplier does not have; (10) That a consumer transaction involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties or other rights, remedies, or obligations if the representation is false.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Risner v. Regal Marine Industries, Inc.

2. “(2) To accept money from a consumer for goods or services ordered by mail, telephone, or otherwise and then permit eight weeks to elapse without: {¶ 22}”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knoth v. Prime Time Marketing Mgt., Inc., Unpublished Decision (10-27-2006)

3. “ultimately approved the contract with the Janoses because he took theircheck, indicated an order date, and requested payment in full. We believe,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. LTV Steel Co.