Volume 225 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

The trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for class certification as to their Consumer Sales Practices Act and unjust enrichment claims. Appellees did not show the relied upon administrative rule provided clear notice that appellant's conduct was deceptive or unfair under the Consumer Sales Practices Act. Nor did appellees show, as to their unjust enrichment claims, that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Judgment reversed cause remanded.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee and in denying appellant's motion for summary judgment. The lease was unambiguous and contained a condition precedent that was not met. Judgment affirmed.

summary judgment, declaratory judgment, quiet title, merger, note, mortgage, joint and several liability, slander of title, motion for reconsideration

Chain of custody Evid.R. 901(A) sufficiency of the evidence murder aggravated murder complicity conspiracy R.C. 2923.01(B) overt act in furtherance of conspiracy Crim.R. 12(C)(2) cruel and unusual punishment Eighth Amendment

Home Solicitation Sales Act deceptive act or practice written three-day notice to the buyer of the right to cancel consumer transaction Consumer Sales Practices Act sword/shield dichotomy election of remedies R.C. 1345.23 R.C. 1345.09 cancellation refund.

void for vagueness, ordinance, poultry

The probate court's admission of limited evidence about settlement discussions did not violate Evid.R. 408, which generally prohibits admission of such evidence. Evidence showing bias or motive is excluded from the prohibition in the rule. Here, the factors used to assess disinterment applications require courts to consider the parties' motives and conduct. Appellant also waived objections to admission of settlement evidence while appellant did challenge admission of settlement matters at various times during trial, she took the opposite position before trial in response to appellees' liminal motion. In addition, appellant had no issue with admitting such evidence when it was to her advantage, as in a post-trial motion she filed. The probate court also correctly found that appellees did not waive their right to seek disinterment, and it did not abuse its discretion in granting appellees' applications for disinterment. The court applied seven factors used to evaluate disinterment and found that most weighed in favor of disinterment. The court's decision was supported by competent, credible evidence. Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to strike appellees' closing brief and in denying her alternative motion to reopen the evidentiary hearing. Appellant alleged that appellees had engaged in frivolous conduct by making false statements in their closing brief. She attempted to establish this by presenting evidence of attempts to compromise that occurred during mediation and at one other point before trial. However, the court correctly noted that appellant attempted to conceal such evidence during trial but was then seeking to use it to her benefit. The court also correctly found that counsel have great latitude in closing argument, and that appellees' closing brief did, in fact, discuss the evidence as it existed in the trial record. Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. The court actually did consider the evidence that appellant wished to submit but found it was duplicative and unnecessary. Judgment affirmed.

No-duty winter rule, natural v. unnatural accumulation of snow and ice, open and obvious doctrine, breach of contract, summary judgment

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by invoking equity to relieve a tenant from the consequences of the tenant's failure to submit a timely notice to renew several commercial leases. The record demonstrated that the landlord would not be prejudiced by the equitable relief, the tenant and subtenant would forfeit millions of dollars in valuable improvements if the leases terminated, and that the failure to timely submit the renewal notice resulted from an honest mistake. The trial court did not plainly err by admitting certain exhibits at trial.

Civ.R. 4.1 Civ.R. 4(2)(F) personal jurisdiction over a corporation plaintiff made service on corporate defendant's only commercial building in Youngstown return of service card was signed with the initials of the corporation's name defendant did not rebut the presumption of proper service judgment overruling motion to vacate on grounds of lack of personal service is affirmed.