Facing an OVI charge in Ohio? Learn the penalties, why license suspension deadlines matter, and whether you need an attorney. Call (614) 558-0125.

Considering divorce in Ohio? Learn how filing, property division, custody, and support work under Ohio law. Call Campbell Perry LLC at (614) 558-0125.

Buying a new car is supposed to be exciting. But for some Ohio drivers, that excitement turns into frustration when the vehicle spends more time in the shop than on the road. Fortunately, Ohio law doesn't leave consumers stuck with a defective car and no recourse. Ohio's Lemon Law, codified at Ohio Revised Code Sections 1345.71 through 1345.77, requires manufacturers to refund or replace new vehicles that can't be fixed after a reasonable number of attempts. If you're dealing with a car, truck, SUV, van, or motorcycle that just won't stay fixed, here's what you need to know about your rights. What the Lemon Law Covers Ohio's Lemon Law applies to new passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and other noncommercial vehicles used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. It protects the original purchaser, anyone the vehicle is transferred to during the warranty period, and anyone else entitled to enforce the warranty's terms. It's important to understand what the law does not cover. Generally, Ohio's state Lemon Law does not apply to used vehicles purchased "as-is" from a private seller. If you bought a used car that still had time remaining on the manufacturer's original warranty, you may still have options - but likely under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act rather than Ohio's state statute. An experienced attorney can help you determine which law applies to your situation. How Do You Know If You Have a "Lemon"? Not every mechanical hiccup qualifies. To be considered a lemon under Ohio law, the defect must be substantial - meaning it affects the vehicle's safety, use, or value. Cosmetic issues, minor rattles, and ordinary wear and tear generally don't meet the standard. Ohio law also requires that the defect surface, and the manufacturer be given a fair chance to fix it, within the vehicle's first year or 18,000 miles, whichever comes first. Within that window, Ohio presumes a vehicle is a lemon if any of the following occur: The same defect has been subject to three or more repair attempts and still isn't fixed; The vehicle has been out of service for repairs for a cumulative total of 30 or more days ; The vehicle has undergone eight or more repair attempts for various defects; or The vehicle has been subject to even one repair attempt for a defect that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if driven. Meeting just one of these conditions can be enough to trigger the presumption that your vehicle is a lemon. What Remedies Are Available? If your vehicle qualifies, Ohio law generally entitles you to choose between two remedies: 1. A full refund of the purchase price, including taxes, fees, and certain incidental costs (such as towing or rental car expenses); or 2. A replacement vehicle of comparable value. Notably, Ohio does not permit manufacturers to reduce your refund based on a "mileage offset" for the use you got out of the vehicle before it was determined to be a lemon. This makes Ohio's law one of the more consumer-friendly lemon laws in the country compared to many other states. The Informal Dispute Resolution Process Before heading to court, Ohio law generally requires consumers to go through a manufacturer's informal dispute resolution (arbitration) program, if the manufacturer has one. This involves submitting a written request to the manufacturer along with supporting documentation - repair orders, invoices, and correspondence. The manufacturer is typically required to respond within a set time frame. If you're not satisfied with the outcome of arbitration, you generally retain the right to pursue a formal legal claim. Protecting Your Claim: Documentation Matters Whether you ultimately pursue arbitration or litigation, your case will only be as strong as your paper trail. If you suspect you may have a lemon on your hands, start protecting yourself right away: Keep every repair order and invoice. Note the date, the reported problem, and what work (if any) was performed. Put your complaints in writing . Even if you report a problem over the phone, follow up with an email or letter to the dealer and manufacturer documenting the conversation. Track your out-of-service days. If your vehicle is in the shop for an extended period, keep a log of exactly how many days it was unavailable to you. Don't wait too long. While Ohio generally allows up to five years from the date of delivery to file a civil action, evidence gets harder to gather and your leverage weakens the longer you wait - especially since the key repair-attempt and mileage thresholds are measured within the vehicle's first year or 18,000 miles. Why Talk to an Attorney Manufacturers have teams of lawyers dedicated to minimizing payouts on lemon law claims, and their arbitration programs aren't always designed with the consumer's best interest in mind. An attorney who understands Ohio's Lemon Law can help you build a well-documented claim, navigate the arbitration process, and pursue litigation if necessary. Ohio law generally requires manufacturers to reimburse the consumer's attorney's fees when a claim is successful. If you believe you've purchased a lemon, don't wait until the problem gets worse or the deadlines start working against you. The team at Campbell Perry LLC is here to help Ohio consumers understand their rights and pursue the refund or replacement they're entitled to. Think you might have a lemon? Contact Campbell Perry LLC today at (614) 558-0125 to discuss your case. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and you should consult with a licensed Ohio attorney regarding the specific facts of your situation.

On April 9, 2025, Ohio joined a growing number of states by enacting the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), codified at Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2747. The statute fundamentally changes how Ohio courts handle lawsuits that target constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern. Whether you’re a business owner, journalist, political candidate, social media user, or attorney, understanding Ohio’s Anti-SLAPP statute is essential. The law provides defendants with a powerful procedural tool to dispose of meritless lawsuits early - and to recover attorney’s fees if successful. What Is a SLAPP Lawsuit? A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a lawsuit filed not necessarily to win on the merits, but to intimidate, silence, or financially burden someone who has exercised their First Amendment rights. Common examples include lawsuits arising from: Online reviews News reporting Political speech Citizen complaints to government agencies Public meetings Social media posts Petitions to governmental bodies Historically, even weak defamation claims could force defendants to endure months or years of expensive litigation before obtaining dismissal. Ohio’s Anti-SLAPP law is designed to prevent precisely that. What Types of Speech Are Protected? The statute applies to claims arising from: Communications made during legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceedings; Communications concerning issues under consideration by a governmental body; and The exercise of the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, petition, assembly, or association on matters of public concern under the United States or Ohio Constitutions. Importantly, the statute is not limited to traditional media. Individuals posting online, citizens speaking at public meetings, advocacy organizations, businesses participating in public debates, and others may all receive protection depending on the circumstances. How the Law Changes Litigation Perhaps the most significant feature of Ohio’s Anti-SLAPP statute is the availability of a Motion for Expedited Relief. A defendant generally has 60 days after service of the complaint (or other covered pleading) to file the motion, although the court may extend that deadline for good cause. Once the motion is filed, several important consequences follow. Automatic Stay of Discovery Unlike ordinary civil litigation, filing an Anti-SLAPP motion generally stays discovery andother proceedings between the moving and responding parties. This prevents plaintiffs from using expensive discovery as leverage before the courtdetermines whether the lawsuit targets protected speech. Limited discovery may be permitted only under narrow circumstances when necessary to resolve the motion. Expedited Court Review The court generally must conduct a hearing within 60 days after the motion is filed unless limited discovery or good cause justifies additional time. In deciding the motion, the court considers the pleadings and evidence similar to what would be considered on summary judgment. Who Has the Burden? The statute creates a burden-shifting framework. First, the moving party must establish that the claim arises from protected speech or conduct covered by Chapter 2747. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a legally sufficient claim supported by a prima facie factual basis. If the plaintiff cannot meet that burden - or if the defendant establishes a valid defense as a matter of law - the court must dismiss the claim with prejudice. Attorney’s Fees Are Mandatory One of the statute’s strongest deterrents is its fee-shifting provision. If the defendant prevails on an Anti-SLAPP motion, the court must award: Reasonable attorney’s fees; Court costs; and Other reasonable litigation expenses. The statute also makes clear that fees cannot be denied merely because counsel represented the defendant on a contingent or pro bono basis. Conversely, if a court determines that an Anti-SLAPP motion itself was frivolous, the responding party may recover its own fees after any appeal is resolved. Immediate Appeal Rights Another significant feature is that denial of an Anti-SLAPP motion constitutes a final appealable order. Rather than waiting until the end of years of litigation, a defendant may immediately seek appellate review of an adverse ruling. Important Exceptions The statute does not apply in every civil case. Among other exclusions, Chapter 2747 generally does not apply to: Actions against governmental entities or officials acting in their official capacity; Government enforcement actions protecting public health or safety; Many commercial speech claims arising from the sale or lease of goods or services; and Bodily injury, wrongful death, and survivorship actions. Because these exceptions can be highly fact-specific, parties should carefully evaluate whether Chapter 2747 applies before filing or opposing an Anti-SLAPP motion. Does the Law Apply to Older Cases? No. The statute applies only to civil actions filed - or claims asserted - on or after April 9, 2025, its effective date. It generally does not apply retroactively to lawsuits already pending before then. Practical Considerations Ohio’s Anti-SLAPP statute significantly changes litigation strategy for both plaintiffs and defendants. For potential plaintiffs: Carefully investigate factual allegations before filing. Ensure sufficient admissible evidence exists to support each claim. Consider whether the challenged statements involve matters of public concern. Evaluate the potential exposure to mandatory attorney’s fees. For defendants: Analyze immediately whether Chapter 2747 applies. Calendar the 60-day filing deadline. Consider whether an early Anti-SLAPP motion could avoid expensive discovery. Preserve evidence supporting constitutional defenses. Final Thoughts Ohio’s adoption of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act represents one of the most significant procedural changes to Ohio defamation and First Amendment litigation in decades. The law reflects a legislative determination that individuals should not be subjected to prolonged and expensive litigation merely for exercising constitutional rights concerning matters of public concern. At the same time, the statute does not provide blanket immunity for defamatory or otherwise unlawful speech. Legitimate claims supported by sufficient evidence may still proceed. The key question is whether the plaintiff can demonstrate a legally viable claim once the protections of Chapter 2747 are invoked. For anyone considering filing a defamation action - or anyone served with one - early legal analysis is more important than ever. Missing the statute’s deadlines or misunderstanding its burden-shifting framework can dramatically affect the outcome of a case.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” In modern society, the First Amendment safeguards Americans’ rights in profoundly important ways. The freedom of speech is inherently counter-majoritarian, because popular speech rarely needs protecting in the first place. Americans enjoy the right to free speech, a free press, and to practice religion, or not at all. Even so, courts sometimes impose limits to the scope of protections. The recent case of “ Bollea v. Gawker ” is one example. Better known to WWE fans by the name “Hulk Hogan,” Terry Gene Bollea filed suit against the online company, Gawker Media. For those unfamiliar with the case, Gawker Media was sued in Florida, for publishing portions of a sex tape depicting Mr. Bollea with a married woman. Among his claims, Mr. Bollea alleged invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Attorneys for Gawker argued that First Amendment guarantees of a free press protected their client’s actions. Gawker’s attorneys tried making the case that a decision for Mr. Bollea would fundamentally change the application of First Amendment law in later cases. The procedural history of Bollea v. Gawker is a little confusing. The case was initially filed in federal court, then dismissed and re-filed in Florida state court. Before trial, Mr. Bollea asked the federal court for a preliminary injunction that, if granted, would have forced Gawker to take down the sex tape until the conclusion of the case. The federal court applied a high standard and said, “publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself.” Examining Mr. Bollea’s lifestyle, the federal court also determined that Mr. Bollea failed to prove that he’d suffer irreparable harm unless the video was taken down; the court held 2that embarrassment and economic harm did not meet the standard for irreparable harm. Moreover, the court was not convinced that taking down the sex tape would serve the public interest, and the request for a preliminary injunction was therefore denied. When the case was later re-filed in Florida state court, Mr. Bollea’s second attempt at a preliminary injunction was granted. When Gawker appealed the decision, however, the Florida Court of Appeals reversed on First Amendment grounds. At trial, Gawker argued that its actions were Constitutionally protected. Mr. Bollea argued that Gawker violated his right to privacy by circulating the sex tape. And a jury agreed, awarding Bollea compensatory and punitive damages of more than $130 million. Gawker declared its intention to appeal, but was forced into bankruptcy before it could do so. Shortly thereafter, Gawker and Bollea agreed to settle the judgment for only $31 million.  The case is significant, if only to illustrate the very high standards of proof in cases involving the First Amendment. Bollea v. Gawker did not set any new precedent, but the case is a reminder that First Amendment protections are indeed limited, and that consequences for unprotected speech can be severe.

According to the National Multifamily Housing Council, over 35% of the U.S. population, 111 million residents, rent rather than own their home. That hefty figure means there are a lot of “landlords” and even more “tenants.” In Ohio, there are rules in place to protect the rights of both landlords and tenants. Chapter 5321 of the Revised Code contains Ohio’s landlord tenant laws. Section 5321.04 covers a landlord’s duties and obligations. Among them, landlords must ensure the rental property is safe, and must keep all common areas habitable. Landlords must also allow a tenant quiet enjoyment of the rental premises, which means giving 24 hours’ notice before entering the property, and means only entering the property for reasonable issues and at reasonable times. Likewise, section 5321.05 covers a tenant’s obligations, including to keep the rental premises in a clean and habitable condition, and allowing the landlord reasonable access to the property. Tenants cannot damage or destroy the premises (obviously), and must conduct themselves so as not to disturb the neighbors. If either the landlord or the tenant fails to comply with their statutory obligations, the law provides for remedies. In the event a landlord is noncompliant, section 5321.07 specifies that a tenant must first give written notice of the problem to the landlord. If the landlord doesn’t remedy the issue within a reasonable time (usually 30 days, unless an emergency), then the tenant may do one of the following; place the monthly rent payment into escrow through the court, or ask the court to order the landlord to remedy the situation at hand, or terminate the lease. In the event a tenant is noncompliant, section 5321.11 permits a landlord to give written notice to remedy the violation. If unresolved within 30 days, the landlord then has the option to terminate the rental agreement. Moreover, if a tenant is not paying rent, or is damaging the property, a landlord may seek eviction. Upon filing an eviction, the court will set a court date, two weeks from the date of filing. Both parties may appear before the court to give their version of events. The court will usually grant a tenant a one-time 7-day continuance, for good cause shown. If the court decides eviction is proper, the tenant will then be given a date by which he or she must vacate. If the tenant does not vacate, the landlord may then pay for a set out, whereby a bailiff comes to the rental property to supervise, while the landlord removes from the premises the tenant’s personal belongings. Hiring an experienced attorney can help the process go more smoothly. It’s worth noting, however, that most landlord/tenant disputes can be solved by open communication. Sometimes the decision to file an eviction is impulsive, and a better outcome could easily be reached through open discussion. If you have a landlord tenant law question, contact your attorney to ensure that your rights are protected.

Our last article concerned the First Amendment, specifically the freedom of speech, and the standard of proof to establish whether someone runs afoul of the First Amendment. Today we’ll focus on the issue of defamation, and discuss when untruthful publications fall outside the First Amendment’s scope of protection. Consider the highly publicized case of defamation, based on a fictitious sexual assault, alleged to have occurred in 2012 at a University of Virginia fraternity. A brief background follows. Jackie’s Story “Jackie,” an 18-year-old freshman at UVA, claimed she was invited to a fraternity party where she alleged to have been gang-raped for several hours by seven male college students. According to her initial account of the incident, Jackie’s friends convinced her not to go to the hospital, and she did not immediately report the supposed rape. In fact, according to her first version of the story, two weeks thereafter, Jackie ran into her perpetrator and thanked him for inviting her to the party. Near the end of her freshman year, Jackie did report the allegations to UVA’s administration, though she declined to pursue criminal charges. By 2014, in her junior year, Jackie still had yet to file a criminal complaint. Around that time, a reporter for Rolling Stone magazine, Sabrina Erdely, made contact with Jackie. Ms. Erdely heard of Jackie’s story and subsequently published an article purporting to expose a ‘ rape culture ,’ and an indifferent administration at UVA. Soon thereafter, Rolling Stone found itself under scrutiny by journalists who identified glaring discrepancies and inconsistencies in Jackie’s story. Rolling Stone was later forced to concede they never interviewed the friends who supposedly came to Jackie’s aid, nor did they interview the alleged male offenders. No one from Rolling Stone even attempted to do so. Remarkably, however, Rolling Stone , stood by Ms. Erdely’s article, insisting Jackie’s story was legitimate and was adequately fact-checked. According to The Washington Post , however, Jackie’s story was simply not credible, and contained conspicuous irregularities that were demonstrably false. The Aftermath After the story was shown to be a fabrication, and Rolling Stone exposed for journalistic sensationalism, the magazine eventually issued an apology. The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism conducted an independent review of the magazine’s reporting. It was determined that Jackie lied about the rape story for her own benefit. Columbia University called out the article’s many conflicts and Rolling Stone’s journalistic misconduct, naming the story the winner of “this year’s media-fail sweepstakes.” Finally, five months after publication, Rolling Stone retracted the article in its entirety. Several people then sued for defamation. On May 12, 2015, Nicole Eramo, UVA’s associate dean, who at the time handled sexual assault issues at UVA, filed a $7.5 million lawsuit against both Rolling Stone and Ms. Erdely. Ms. Eramo claimed damage to her reputation and emotional distress, and claimed that both Rolling Stone and Ms. Erdely acted willfully and wantonly by publishing the article. On November 4, 2016, a jury found Rolling Stone and Ms. Erdely liable for defaming Ms. Eramo, and awarded damages of $3 million. The First Amendment’s free speech protections have limits. Ms. Erdely published a damaging story about a sensitive topic, without fact checking or interviewing individuals with supposed direct involvement in the story. All of which goes against everything the First Amendment stands for. The First Amendment protects individuals’ right to free speech, but it does not protect assertions of objectively false facts, nor does it protect statements made with knowledge that they are false or made with reckless disregard for whether they are false or not. It is not o.k. to merely hear a scandalous story, then publish it without verification. To do so can have devastating consequences for innocent people. Ms. Erdely relied solely on the unverified story of a 20-year-old student, and published her story for millions of people to read. Her conduct grossly violated the most basic of journalistic standards, and violated the rights of others. The First Amendment cannot and will not protect people who blatantly disregard the truth. Absent these limitations, anyone willing to engage in falsehoods might otherwise do unanswerable harm to the lives of others.

A few weeks ago we wrote an article that detailed the various levels of legalization of marijuana in the United States, and focused on the trend toward legalization of marijuana overall. At the time, Ohio had just voted down Issue 3, and was without any form of legalized marijuana. Within the past couple of months, however, there’s been a change of events. In May, Representative Stephen Hoffman of the Ohio House of Representatives, proposed House Bill 523, called “Marijuana- Authorize Use for Medical Purposes.” The overwhelming majority, in both the House and the Senate, voted in favor of passing the bill, after which Governor John Kasich signed and approved the bill. House Bill 523 will go into effect on September 18, 2016, at which time the state of Ohio will commence the process of creating a Medical Marijuana Control Program, which will regulate the medical marijuana industry. The bill calls for the formation of a 14-member Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee, that will advise the Department of Commerce and the Pharmacy Board as they set up all aspects of the bill. The Advisory Committee will expire within 5-years, and 30-days of the bill’s effective date. With the Advisory Board’s guidance, the Department of Commerce and Pharmacy Board, will create the Control Program through rules that must be established within 1-year of the bill’s effective date. After the rules are established, the Department of Commerce and Pharmacy Board will set up cultivators and the other aspects (dispensaries, laboratories, etc.) needed to help the bill function properly. Once the bill is in effect, it will allow physicians who wish to prescribe medical marijuana to their patients to participate in a program to become certified. After a physician is certified, they will be able to prescribe marijuana to their patients who qualify for medical marijuana treatment. The list of diseases and ailments that will qualify includes both mental and physical illnesses, and ranges from Crohn’s disease and post-traumatic stress disorder, all the way to cancer and AIDS. Qualifying individuals will not be able to access medical marijuana in Ohio until the Control Program and all of the steps outlined in the bill have been completed, but there is a deadline in place. The state of Ohio must have the Control Program, and everything else established and in place, within 2-years of the bill going into effect. Essentially, the bill will be effective in its entirety on or before September 18, 2018. Further, on September 18, 2016, individuals with medical conditions listed in the bill will legally be allowed to travel to a state with an already established medical marijuana system, purchase marijuana, and transport it back to Ohio. House bill 523 places other restrictions on medical marijuana. There will continue to be a ban on smoking marijuana, and also on growing marijuana at home; both of these will continue to be illegal. Those using medical marijuana will be able to use marijuana oils, edibles, patches, and other methods approved by the Board of Pharmacy. Another restriction of the bill is the fact that the bill will allow employers to enforce a drug-free workplace and will also allow employers to legally terminate an individual for a violation of the employer’s drug-free policy, due to the legal use of medical marijuana. House Bill 523 in its entirety is over 80 pages, but it boils down to pretty simple terms. Ohio has a few hoops to jump through, and a few timelines to meet, prior to having medical marijuana regularly accessible in Ohio; however, House Bill 523 will ultimately lead to a legal and safe method for qualifying individuals to receive a prescription to treat their conditions with medical marijuana. House Bill 523 will give thousands of Ohio residents the option to legally treat with marijuana, if they wish to do so.

Please drink responsibly tonight. Four DUI checkpoints planned across Central Ohio