Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Squires Constr. Co. v. Thomas, 89609 (3-27-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
- Post v. Procare Automotive Serv. Solutions, 87646 (5-3-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- Klimaszewski v. Ganley, Inc., 88762 (7-26-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Clermont App. No. CA2005-09-083, 2006-Ohio-4428. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 2 of the court of appeals’ Entry filed October 23, 2006:
“Should an appellate court apply a de novo or abuse of discretion standard of review when reviewing a trial court’s decision granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration where it is alleged that the arbitration clause is unconscionable?”
The conflict cases are Small v. HCF of Perrysburg, Inc., 159 Ohio App.3d 66, 2004-Ohio-5757, Sikes v. Ganley Pontiac Honda, Inc., et al, Cuyahoga App. No. 82889, 2004-0hio-155, Harper v. J.D. Byrider of Canton, 148 Ohio App.3d 122, 2002-Ohio-2657, and Cronin v. California Fitness, Franklin App. No. 04AP-1121, 2005-Ohio-3273.
Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-1890, Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, Clermont App. No. CA2005-09-083, 2006-Ohio-4428.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.