|
Resume
Credentials of Ronald L. Burdge
Ronald L. Burdge
Burdge Law Office Co., LPA
2299 Miamisburg Centerville Road
Dayton, OH 45459
Voice: 937.432.9500
Fax: 937.432.9503
Email: Ron@OhioLemonLaw.com
Web Sites:
Bar Admissions Since 1978:
- Ohio
- Kentucky
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit
- U.S. District Court, Southern and Northern Districts,
Ohio
- U.S. District Court, Southern and Northern Districts,
Indiana
Awards:
- 2011 Ohio Super Lawyer, Thomson Reuters Corp., Professional
Division
- 2010 Ohio Super Lawyer, Thomson Reuters Corp., Professional
Division
- 2009 Ohio Super Lawyer, Law & Politics Magazine
- 2008 Ohio Super Lawyer, Law & Politics Magazine
- 2007 Ohio Super Lawyer, Law & Politics Magazine
- 2006 Ohio Super Lawyer, Law & Politics Magazine
- 2005 Ohio Super Lawyer, Law & Politics Magazine
- 2004 Consumer Law Trial Lawyer of the Year, National
Association of Consumer Advocates
Board Examiner:
- 2002 Civil Trial Law, National Board of Legal Specialty
Certification
Education:
- 1978 Juris Doctor degree, University of Dayton
- 1975 Bachelor of Arts degree, San Diego State University,
California
- 1973 Associate of Arts degree, Merced University, California
Publications:
- Ohio Consumer Law, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Thomson West
Chapter 6, Odometer Fraud
Chapter 25, Assistive Device Lemon Law
- National Association of Consumer Advocates, The Consumer
Advocate, Contributing Editor
- Articles Appearing from 2004 to 2008 in The Consumer
Advocate
Vol. 14, No. 1, Attorney Fee Hearing Factors & Testimony, 2008
Vol. 13, No. 4, Should You Appeal, Again?, 2007
Vol. 13, No. 2, Why You Must Go To Trial (The Spartan and
the
Trial Lawyer), 2007
Vol. 12, No. 1, How You Can, and Why You Should, Get a
Free
Web Site (NACA Members), 2006
Vol. 11, No. 3, Memo to a New Expert Witness, 2005
Vol. 10, No. 4, Pig’s Ear, Meet Silk Purse: 13 Life Lessons, 2004
- “When Vehicles Turn Sour: A Look at Ohio’s
Lemon Law”,
Cincinnati Bar Association, The Report, May 2000
- Authored Various Articles Appearing from 1997 to 2007
In:
National Consumer Law Center's Consumer Credit & Sales
Legal Practice Series
- Automobile Fraud
- Consumer Warranty Law
- Consumer Law Pleadings
- The Practice of Consumer Law
- “How You Can and Why You Should Get a Free Web
Site, Dayton Bar Association, Dayton Bar Briefs, November 2005
- Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, 1995, National
Business Institute
Professional Association Memberships and Relationships:
- Board of Directors, National Association of Consumer
Advocates
- Ohio State Bar Association
- Kentucky State Bar Association
- National Association of Consumer Advocates
- National Consumer Law Center
- International Association of Consumer Law
- American Society of Legal Writers
- Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (Associate)
- Total Practice Management Association
- Legal Writing Institute
- (And various local bar associations)
Seminars Given:
- April 29, 2011 - National Association of Consumer Advocates
Webinar, Examining the US Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey
Report
- November 13, 2010 - National Consumer Law Center
Consumer Rights Litigation Conference (Boston, MA)
- Effective Use of a Documents Examination Expert
- October 26, 2010 - University of Houston Law Center
(Houston, TX)
Visiting Speaker, Consumer Law Studies
- The Economics of Practicing Law
- May 14-16, 2010 - National Association of Consumer Advocates
2010 Autofraud Litigation Conference (Chicago, IL)
- Running a Successful Law Office in a Difficult Economy
- Marketing with Creativity
- Strategies for Getting You and Your Client Paid
- Car Dealer Economics Now
- Using the FTC Holder Rule
- How to Strengthen Your Claim for Attorneys Fees
- May 14, 2010 - Institute for Foreclosure Legal Assistance
Grantees Meeting (Chicago, IL)
- Recovering Attorney Fee Awards in Consumer Protection
Litigation
- May 13, 2010 - Ohio Association for Justice, Consumer
Law
Seminar Annual Convention (Columbus, OH)
- The Fundamental Secret of Business Success, 2010
- October 22-25, 2009 - National Consumer Law Center
Consumer Rights Litigation Conference (Philadelphia, PA)
- ABCs of Automobile Litigation, Course Planner & Session
- Auto Sales 101: an Overview of the Psychology
Behind the Retail Auto Sales Industry, 2009
- Doing Well While Doing, Course Planner and 2 Sessions
- The Fundamental Secret of Business Success, 2009
- Practicing Law Profitably
- Cross Examination of Adverse Expert Witnesses, 2009
- September 17, 2009 - Moritz College of Law, Ohio State
University
(Columbus, OH) Visiting Speaker, Consumer Law Studies
- The Economics of Practicing Consumer Law
- Understanding the Auto Industry
- June 19, 2009 - Legal Services of North Florida & Escambia
Santa
Rosa Bar Association (Pensacola, FL)
Weathering the Financial Storm - Consumer Advocacy as a
Means to
Help Your Practice and Clients
- The Auto Sales Fraud Toolbox
- February 5, 2009 - University of Houston Law Center
(Houston, TX)
Visiting Speaker, Consumer Law Studies
- The Economics of Practicing Consumer Law
- December 9, 2008 - Ohio Attorney General, Consumer Protection
Division (Columbus, OH)
- Duct Tape Discovery: Finding Consumer Fraud & Making
it
Stick
- October 24-26, 2008 - National Consumer Law Center
Consumer Rights Litigation Conference (Portland, OR)
- Doing Well While Doing Good, Course Planner & Sessions
- Lawyer E(ntrepreneur) Myths
- Successful Billing and Fee Practices
- The Psychology of Opening Statements & Closing
Arguments
- September 6, 2008 - National Association of Consumer
Advocates
2008 Mortgage Lending Litigation Conference (Cleveland,
OH)
- Recovering Attorney Fees in Consumer Litigation
- May 23-24, 2008 - University of Houston Law Center (Houston,
TX)
Teaching Consumer Law
- Recovering Attorneys’ Fees
- May 16-18, 2008 - National Association of Consumer Advocates
2008 Auto Fraud Litigation Conference (Houston, TX)
- Understanding the Auto Industry
- Attorney’s Fees, Practices & Issues
- November 8-11, 2007 - National Consumer Law Center
Consumer Rights Litigation Conference (Washington, DC)
- Doing Well While Doing Good, Course Planner & Sessions
- Lawyer E(ntrepreneur) Myths
- Billing and Attorney Fee Issues
- Understanding and Using Car Dealer Documents
- A Mock Attorney Fee Hearing
- June 14, 2007 - Ohio State Legal Services Association
(Columbus, OH)
Discovery in Consumer Law Cases
- The Importance of Developing Cases for Trial
- February 1, 2007 - University of Houston Law Center (Houston,
TX)
Visiting Speaker, Consumer Law Studies
- The Economics of Practicing Consumer Law
- November 10-13, 2006 - National Consumer Law Center (Miami,
FL)
Consumer Rights Litigation Conference
- Doing Well While Doing Good
- Recovering Attorney Fees in Car Cases: Practice, Procedure,
Thoughts
- November 5-8, 2004 - National Consumer Law Center (Boston,
MA)
Consumer Rights Litigation Conference
- How to Successfully Sue Dealers for Marking Up Finance
Charges
- September 17-19, 2003 - National Association of Consumer
Advocates (Cleveland, OH)
Auto Fraud Conference
- Discovery Practice and Litigation Strategies
September 26, 2003 - Ohio State Bar Association Continuing
Legal
Education Institute - 8th Annual Consumer Law (Columbus,
OH)
Institute - Course Planner and 2 Sessions
- Lemon Law Update and Case Summaries
- Handicap Device Lemon Law
- October 25-28, 2002 - National Association of Consumer
Advocates
Consumer Rights Litigation Conference
- Fair Credit Reporting Act and Illegal Credit Pulls by
Car
Dealers
- September 27, 2002 - OSBA - OCLE - 7th Annual Consumer
Law
(Columbus, OH)
Institute - Course Planner and 2 Sessions
- Current Attorney Fee Cases
- Litigation Strategies and Case Law Update
- September 20, 2002 - The Ohio Supreme Court Judicial
College
“Civil Law Topics - Consumer Sales Practices Act” Judge’s
Conference
- CSPA, Alternatives to CSPA, Lemon Law, Attorney Fee
Issues
- April 8, 2002 - The Ohio Supreme Court Judicial College
“Consumer Sales Practices Act” Conference for Judges, Course
Planner
- CSPA, Alternatives to CSPA, Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act, Lemon Law, Attorney Fee Issues
- October 26, 2001 - National Association of Consumer
Advocates
10th National Consumer Rights Litigation Conference - 2
Sessions
- Putting All the Pieces Together for a Successful Car
Case
- Lessons from 20 years of Interviewing Car Case Clients
- September 28, 2001 - Ohio State Bar Association Continuing
Legal
Education Institute - 6th Annual Consumer Law (Columbus,
OH)
Institute - Course Planner and 4 Sessions
- Magnuson Moss and Related Issues
- The Truth In Lending Act
- Privacy Litigation: A New Frontier
- Mandatory Arbitration Clauses and Related Issues
May 4, 2001 - Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers 43rd Annual
Convention (Columbus, OH)
Consumer Law Section Seminar
- Preparing for the Fee Hearing & Complying
With Disciplinary Rule Requirements
- October 27, 2000 - National Association of Consumer
Advocates
9th National Consumer Rights Litigation Conference - 2
Sessions
- Car Financing Scams
- Ways to Cancel a Contract
- October 30, 2000 - National Consumer Law Center
Auto Fraud Conference - Sessions
- Attorney Fee Issues
- Presenting Closing Argument
- March 24, 2000 - Ohio State Bar Association Continuing
Legal
Education Institute Annual “Ohio Consumer Law” Course
(Organizer and Presenter for Prior 8 Annual Courses)
- November 17, 1999 - The Ohio Supreme Court Judicial
College
“Consumer Law for Municipal Court Magistrates” Conference
- November 5, 1999 - National Association of Consumer
Advocates
8th National Consumer Rights Litigation Conference
- Common Car Financing Violations
- Credit Services Act Litigation
- Lemon Law Litigation Basics
- How Car Sales Really Work
- Nuts & Bolts of Lemon Litigation
- November 8, 1999 - National Consumer Law Center
Auto Fraud Conference - 2 sessions
- Law Office Economics
- Developing Consumer Law Practice
- October 10, 1998 - National Association of Consumer
Advocates
7th National Consumer Rights Litigation Conference - 1
session
- Law Office Economics
- October 12, 1998 - National Consumer Law Center
Automobile Fraud Conference - 2 sessions
- Lender Litigation Practice and Procedures in Warranty
Law
- Analyzing Automobile Documents & Spot Delivery
- June 13, 1998 - National Association of Consumer Advocates
Consumer Finance and Anti-Fraud Conference
- Auto Financing Issues
- March 7, 8, 20, 21, 1991 - Professional Education Systems,
Inc.
Consumer Law for the Practitioner - 4 Seminars (Statewide),
Planner
& Sessions
- Retail Installment Sales Act
- Federal Trade Commission Act
- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
- Ohio Lemon Law
- Conducting the Car Case Client Interview
Reported Cases
Here are just some of the court cases Mr. Burdge has litigated.
- O’Neill v Tanoukhi dba 4 Wheels (2010, Ohio 7th
Dist CA), 2011-Ohio-2626, (deciding that (1) a party does
not need to make a Civil Rule 52 request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law to obtain specific findings
on the trial court’s fee decision in a fee motion
under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and (2) when
determining the amount of attorney fees to award under
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, a trial court is
required to set forth its methodology with sufficient specificity
for its basis that a meaningful appellate review can be
conducted )
- Olah v Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. (2010, Ohio 8th Dist. CA),
191 Ohio App.3d 456, 2010-Ohio-5485 (deciding the extent
of effect of Parole Evidence Rule in auto sales fraud case
involving multiple claims).
- Stammco LLC v United Telephone Co. Of Ohio (2010, Ohio
Supreme Court), 2010-Ohio-1042 (Amicus brief on behalf
of National Association of Consumer Advocates; determining
propriety of requirements for class definition of class
certified in “cramming” case of causing unauthorized
charges to be placed on customers’ telephone bills).
- Green v Germain Ford of Columbus, LLC (2009, Ohio 10th
Dist. CA), 2009-Ohio-5020 (deciding final appealable order
questions).
- Williams v Spitzer Autoworld Canton LLC (2009, Ohio Supreme
Court), 2009-Ohio-3553 (Amicus brief on behalf of National
Association of Consumer Advocates and Ohio Association
for Justice; allowing Parole Evidence Rule to take effect
in claims under the Consumer Sales Practices Act).
- Shumaker v Hamilton Chevrolet, Inc. (2009, Ohio 4th Dist.
CA), 2009-Ohio-5263 (involving mootness of appeal when
judgment partially satisfied, whether violation of Federal
Trade Commission rule constituted CSPA violation, and interpretation
of OAC’s Ohio Motor Vehicle Sales Rule).
- Gordon v Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. (2008, USDC ND, ED),
2008 WL 3200257 (defendant’s motion to transfer venue,
based on venue clause in factory warranty signed by plaintiffs,
was denied).
- Searles v Germain Ford of Columbus LLC (2007, Ohio),
2007-Ohio-7140, 174 Ohio App.3d 555 (Case of first impression
determining that a consumer can bring both individual claims
and a class action claim in the same case under Ohio’s
Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statute).
- Toy v Mazza (2007, Ohio 11th Dist. CA), 2007-Ohio-6406
(class certification questions under Civ. R. 23(B)).
- Anousheh v Planet Ford, Inc. (2007, Ohio 2nd Dist. CA),
2007-Ohio-4543 (upholding admission of CarFax report as
evidence, reversing on jury instruction error).
- Klimaszewski v Ganley, Inc. (2007, Ohio 8th Dist. CA),
2007-Ohio-3766 (reversing trial court’s decision
to enforce arbitration clause in sales contract).
- Reagans v Mountainhigh Coach, et al (2006, Ohio Supreme
Court), 2008-Ohio-271 (Case of first impression for Supreme
Court, determining the extent of an innocent lender’s
liability for defunct seller’s claims and defenses
under 16 CFR 433, the FTC Holder Rule).
- Walker v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2006, Ohio Lucas
Co. CP), 2006-Ohio-7255, 141 O.Misc.2d 36 (contrary to
several other trial court decisions, the court here held
that a Consumer Act claim can not be stated against an
insurance company).
- Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc. (2006, Ohio Supreme
Court), 111 Ohio St.3d 177, 2006-Ohio-5481 (Amicus brief
on behalf of National Association of Consumer Advocates;
allowing recovery of trebled noneconomic damages under
the Consumer Sales Practices Act).
- Smith v General Motors Corp., et al (2006, Ohio 2nd Dist.
CA), 168 Ohio App.3d 336, 2006-Ohio-4283, 2006 WL 2381873
(allowing an expert to testify on car dealer sales terminology
and tactics and upholding a punitive damage ratio of $840
actual damages to $35,000 punitive).
- Walker v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006, Ohio Com.Pl.),
2006-Ohio-7255, 141 Ohio Misc.2d 36 (insurance company
liability question arising from insurer’s sale of
car with clean title instead of salvage title after car
declared total loss).
- Olah v Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. (2006, Ohio 8th Dist. CA),
2006-Ohio-694, 2006 WL 350204 (holding an arbitration process
to be unconscionable when it misleads a consumer and fails
to disclose material terms of the arbitration process).
- Reagans v Mountainhigh Coach, et al (2006, Ohio 2nd Dist.
CA), 2006-Ohio-423 (Court of Appeals decision determining
the extent of an innocent lender’s liability for
defunct seller’s claims and defenses under 16 CFR
433, the FTC Holder Rule).
- Harris v Ford Motor Co. (2006, Ohio 2nd Dist. CA), 2006-Ohio-259
(holding that a dispute resolution process under the Lemon
Law is an administrative process that is waived if not
specifically pled as an affirmative defense).
- Brooks v Kia Motors America, Inc. (2006, Ohio Com.Pl.),
2006 WL 662745 (holding that when a car dealer charges
for “Hazardous Waste” or “Shop Supplies” without
providing conspicuous notice or posting a conspicuous sign,
it violates the Ohio CSPA statute).
- McGuinea v Ganley Nissan, Inc. (2005, Ohio 8th Dist.
CA), 2005-Ohio-6239 (holding that party claiming arbitration
mechanism as a defense must introduce evidence of an agreement
to arbitrate).
- Anderson v DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2005, Ohio Cmn.Pl.)
2005 WL 3891034 (holding that when a car dealer violates
the FTC Holder Rule, 16 CFR 433.1, it violates the Ohio
CSPA statute).
- Blanco v KeyBank USA, NA (2005, USDC, ND OH), 2005 WL
4135013 (class action involving variable rate loan disclosures
under the Truth In Lending Act, 15 USC 1601).
- Able v KeyBank USA, NA (2005, USDC, ND OH) (attorney
fees in class action involving variable rate loan disclosures
under the Truth In Lending Act, 15 USC 1601).
- Temple v Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (2005, US CA6 Ohio),
133 Fed. Appx. 254, 2005 WL 1285719 (interpreting Ohio
Lemon Law, Magnuson Moss Act, liability of recreational
motor home manufacturer).
- Arnold v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (2005, Ohio 2nd Dist.
CA), 2005-Ohio-1710, 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 1644 (case of
first impression requiring Indiana car dealer engaged in
internet transactions with Ohio residents to be licensed
under Ohio’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Licensing statute
and holding the failure to violate the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act).
- Bolt vs Yamaha (2004, Ohio), 2004-Ohio-1205, 2004 Ohio
App. LEXIS 1052 (a “lemon” boat case interpreting
difference in implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for particular purpose and fitness for use).
- Abel vs Keybank USA (2004, US DC ND, OH), 2004 WL 540699,
2004 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4601 (class action certified in case
involving statutory conflict between Ohio Retail Instalment
Sales Act and the National Bank Act).
- Abel v Keybank USA, NA (2004, USDC ND OH), 313 F.Supp.2d
720 (interpreting statutory conflict between Ohio Retail
Instalment Sales Act and the National Bank Act).
- Browning v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2002, Ohio Montgomery
Co CP), 2002 WL 32063978, deciding that a vehicle was a "new
motor vehicle" under the Lemon Law if it was purchased
within its first eighteen thousand miles of operation and
within one year of the original delivery date. This statutory
interpretation was later validated by the Ohio Supreme
Court in Curl v Volkswagen, 2007-Ohio-3609.
- Cincinnati ex rel Ritter vs Cincinnati Reds LLC (2002,
Ohio 1st Dist. CA), 2002-Ohio-2078, 150 Ohio App.3d 728
(interpreting Ohio’s taxpayer rights statute).
- Boyle vs. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2002, Ohio 2nd Dist.
CA), 2002-Ohio-4199, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 4367, 2002-2
Trade Cas. (CCH) P73,774 (a “lemon law” case
involving a handicap-conversion van, holding that the breach
of a warranty can diminish the value of a vehicle and that
can be unfair to the consumer).
- Bryant vs. Walt Sweeney Automotive, Inc. (2002, Ohio
1st Dist. CA), 2002-Ohio-2577, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 2657,
02-LW-1985 (an “autofraud” case involving a
used car sold “as is” where jury instructions
and the applicability of the Tort Reform Act’s burden
of proof in common law fraud were contested).
- McIntire v Ford Motor Co. (2001, S.D. Ohio), 142 F.Supp.2d
911 (a class action involving misrepresentations that manufacturer’s
Lemon Law arbitration process was mandatory and approved
by Ohio Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission).
- Snook vs Ford Motor Co., et al (2001, Ohio 2nd Dist.
CA), 142 Ohio App.3d 212, 755 N.E.2d 380 (case of first
impression, holding the Credit Services Organization Act
to be applicable to a car dealership where money is paid
for dealership’s credit services).
- Hall vs Jack Walker Pontiac Toyota, Inc., et al (2001,
Ohio 2nd Dist. CA), 143 Ohio App.3d 678, 758 N.E.2d 1151
(discussing class action certification requirements in
light of the Credit Services Organization and Consumer
Acts and car dealership sales and financing practices).
- Morales v Walker Motor Sales, Inc. (SD Ohio 2000), 162
F.Supp.2d 786 (interpreting lending institution liability
under the FTC “anti holder in due course” rule
in the absence of the mandatory language).
- Sannes vs. Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc. (1999, Ohio Clermont
Co. CP), 107 Ohio Misc.2d 6 107 N.E.2d 112 (the first case
in Ohio to apply Ohio’s Credit Services Organization
Act to the financing practices of a car dealership).
- Birch v Al Castrucci, Inc. (1999, Ohio 2nd Dist. CA),
1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3816 (holding it to be illegal for
a car dealer to have a consumer sign any new car sales
document before disclosing prior damage in excess of minimum
repair allowed by law).
- Sannes vs. Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc. (1999, Ohio Clermont
Co. CP), 107 Ohio Misc.2d 11, 736 N.E.3d 116 (Motion for
Reconsideration denied with further elaboration by trial
court on the application of Ohio’s Credit Services
Organization Act).
- Davenport vs Score Automotive, Inc. (1997, Ohio 12th
Dist. CA), 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 5337 (interpreting right
to rescission and substantial use of goods under Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act and Commercial Code).
- In re General Motors Corp. Anti-Lock Brake Products (1997,
ED Missouri, ED), 966 F.Supp. 1525 (multidistrict litigation
involving allegations under breach of warranty, fraud and
CSPA statutes).
- Birch v Al Castrucci, Inc. (1995, Ohio 2nd Dist. CA),
1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 3227 (interpreting a jury waiver in
a consumer contract to be presumptively enforceable).
- Turner vs. Bob Ross Buick, Inc. (1993, Ohio 2nd Dist.
CA), 629 N.E.2d 1372, 1993 WL 485256, Cert. Denied 69 Ohio
St.3d 1410 (upholding a Jury verdict of $120,000 punitive
damages in a consumer fraud case under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act involving $1,300 of undisclosed repairs
in the sale of a used car, purchased by an attorney; the
consumer recovered over $142,000, including interest on
the judgment, and kept the car).
- State vs. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. (1993, Ohio 12th Dist.
CA), 622 N.E.2d 543, 1993 WL 229392, Cert. Denied 67 Ohio
St.3d 1506 (a certified class action case over Rose’s
practice of selling used rental cars as "factory official"cars).
- Sprovach vs. Bob Ross Buick, Inc. (1993, Ohio 2nd Dist.
CA), 628 N.E.2d 82 (the seminal case that decided when
attorney fees should be requested under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act).
- Bittner vs. Tri-County Toyota, Inc. (1991, Ohio Supreme
Court), 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (a ground-breaking case that
decided how an award of attorney fees is to be calculated
under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act).
- Einhorn vs. Beau Townsend Ford, Inc. (1990, Ohio Supreme
Court), 48 Ohio St.3d 27 (this case resolved the Appellate
District courts’ conflicting interpretations on the
meaning of "knowingly" under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act).
- Zeff vs Rose Chevrolet, Inc. (1989, Ohio 12th Dist. CA),
62 Ohio App.3d 54, 574 N.E.2d 562 (Class action certification
decision appeal was upheld on reconsideration of unreported
decision dismissing appeal of certification decision).
- Brown vs. Liberty Clubs (1989, Ohio Supreme Court), 45
Ohio St.3d 191 (this 10 year long lawsuit went to the court
of appeals twice before the Supreme Court held that the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act covers a "mixed" consumer
transaction involving both personal and real property).
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc, vs. Adams (1988, Ohio Supreme Court),
36 Ohio St.3d 17 (doing the appellate work on this bitterly
fought case, Mr. Burdge’s appellate argument involved
the burden of proof a consumer needed in order to set aside
a default judgment under Civil Rule 60-B).
- Hardeman vs. Wheels, Inc. (1988, Ohio 12th Dist. CA),
56 Ohio App.3d 142 (in this case of first impression the
Court of Appeals interpreted the Federal Trade Commission’s
Trade Regulation Rule 16 C.F.R. 433.2(a), and adopted Mr.
Burdge’s characterization of it as the "anti-holder
in due course" clause, deciding the claims and defenses
which an innocent consumer could assert against an innocent
financier of a new car sold by a fraudulent car dealer).
- Crull vs. Maple Park Body Shop (1987, Ohio 12th Dist.
CA), 36 Ohio App.3d 153 (this case of first impression
interpreted the Ohio Fictitious Name Act and its interplay
with the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act).
- In re Hurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Thomas vs. Hurst
Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (SD Ohio 1987), 72 Bankr. R. 747 (this case involved
the personal liability of the owner of a defunct car dealership
to consumers for his "title-kiting" and failure
to deliver titles to sold vehicles).
- Brooks vs. Hurst Buick-Pontiac-Olds-GMC, Inc. (1985,
Ohio 12th Dist. CA), 23 Ohio App.3d (this leading case
of first impression established the definition of "knowing" under
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act which was eventually
adopted by other state Appellate Courts and the Supreme
Court in another case handled by Mr. Burdge).
- In re Clemons dba Clemons Marine Sports, Jarnicki,
Trustee v Clemons (1984, USBC SD OH WD), 42 B.R. 796 (trustee action
regarding merchant’s concealment of assets and lien
disqualification).
- Davidson vs Hurst Buick Olds, Pontiac, GMC (1984, Ohio
12th Dist. CA), 1984 Ohio App. LEXIS 8757 (12th Dist. CA)
(interpreting Ohio’s “Savings Statute” which
gives a consumer the lawful right to voluntarily drop their
case and refile it again later if they want to).
- In re Matter of Jones (1983, USBC SD OH OH WD), 27 B.R.
374 (creditor’s liability for stay violation).
- In Re Matter of Thacker (SD Ohio 1982), 24 Bankr. R.
835 (this case held an attorney liable to a consumer for
the attorney’’s violation of a Bankruptcy Court’’s "Stay
Order" which was caused by the attorney’’s
deliberate garnishment of the consumer’’s account
and the attorney’’s failure to refund the garnishment).
- Valandingham v Jack Walker Pontiac Toyota, Inc. (1982,
Ohio Com.Pl.), 1982 WL 593294 (case of first impression
on setoff in contract rescission and allowable stacking
of damages under UCC and CSPA and Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act).
- Benchic vs. Center Entertainment Corp. (SD Ohio 1982),
25 B.R. 502; Matter of Century Entertainment Corp. (SD
Ohio 1982), 21 B.R. 160; Benchic vs. Century Entertainment
Corp. (SD Ohio 1982), 20 B.R. 126 (these class action cases
involved violation of numerous consumer protection laws
by a company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy).
- In Re Walter (SD Ohio 1982), 17 B.R. 644 (interpreting
the consumer protection provisions of the Ohio Retail Instalment
Sales Act and the Truth In Lending Act, in relation to
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code).
- Phillips vs. Cincinnati Insurance Company (1979, Ohio
Supreme Court), 60 Ohio St. 2d 180 (this ground breaking
case involved a fight between an insurance company and
a consumer over a $1500 pickup truck that was stolen from
the consumer-owner; the Supreme Court held, for the first
time, that an innocent purchaser of a stolen motor vehicle
has an insurable interest in the vehicle and the insurance
company had to pay the claim).
- Brown v Spears (1979, Ohio Mun.), 1979 WL 525451 (case
of first impression finding violation of Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act to be a per se violation of the Ohio CSPA
statute).
In This Section

|
|