110 Ohio App. 3d 504 - Crye v. Smolak’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably 157 Ohio App. 3d 150 - Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co. (2004), 365 N.J. Super. 520 - DEBRA F. FINK v. Ricoh Corp. (2003)
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. · Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc. · Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co. · 61 Ohio App. 2d 78 - Thomas v. Sun Furniture & Appliance Co. · 65 Ohio App. 3d 719 - Eckman v. Columbia Oldsmobile, Inc.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if there are separate rule violations caused by separate acts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) It shall be a deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction for a supplier: * * * (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: (a) Making shipment or delivery of the goods or services ordered; (b) Making a full refund; (c) Advising the consumer of the duration of an extended delay and offering to send the consumer a refund within two weeks if the consumer so requests; or (d) Furnishing similar goods or services of equal or greater value as a good faith substitute if the consumer agrees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“where a supplier is found to have engaged in acts that constitute violations of separate rules or court rulings interpreting [Ohio Revised Code] 1345.02 or 1345.03, the consumer is entitled to $200 per violation or his or her actual damages for each violation, whichever is greater. This does not, however, preclude a court from finding that the facts are such that only one act occurred that resulted in only one violation or, ... that two rules are so similar as applied to the facts that only one violation is found.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Charvat v. NMP, LLC
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.