Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Lauren E. Willis on Predatory Lending | Main | FDCPA Amendments »

Sunday, October 01, 2006



I agree with the Ohio Supreme Court decision in this particular instance. However, this Court has problems. It has become one of the most politicized judicial entity in the Country. For the past several elections, business interests have dumped huge sums of money into the campaigns of Supreme Court candidates. While I am a conservative and welcome more conservative-minded justices, this Court appears to have become a place of extreme influence peddling.

For all of the conservative cries about judicial activism, the Ohio Supreme Court, full of "conservatives" embraces the practice constantly. The Dardinger case is one example. Huge punitive damage award against an insurer which went out of its way to deny claims for treatment for a dying woman. The Court remitted the punitive damages award. Okay, it can do that. Then, without the benefit of a legislative enactment of any kind, it appropriated $10,000,000 of that award and transferred it to a trust that the Court created. No authority whatsoever for its actions.

In another recent case, the Court turned the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act on its ear by reversing nearly 30 years of case law in holding that, for a court decision to have binding affect on future violators, the decision must relate to exactly the same industry as that of the future violator. (i.e. a decision finding that a supplier's misrepresentation about quality of a hot tub is a violation of the CSPA cannot be used later against the seller of a pool table who also misrepresents the quailty of its product.) The decision was issued in a "light" cigarette class action case. Someone should look at the money trail there.

The fact is that this Court is strongly results-oriented - the law, and logic, be damned.


Doesn't it matter in the slightest that the four judges in the majority were correct? Why isn't the scandal over the three dissenters and the intermediate appellate court who issued lawless opinions?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

January 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31