Title: Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 113 Ohio St.3d 394, 2007-
Ohio-2203.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND MOBILE RADIO SALES, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES, v. 
VERIZON WIRELESS, A.K.A NEW PAR, ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
DISCOUNT CELLULAR, INC., APPELLEE, v. AMERITECH MOBILE 
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless,  
113 Ohio St.3d 394, 2007-Ohio-2203.] 
Statutes of limitations — Remedial or punitive intent — R.C. 4905.61 is a penalty 
statute. 
(Nos. 2005-2299 and 2005-2302 – Submitted January 9, 2007 – Decided  
May 23, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 85618, 2005-Ohio-5437. 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,  
No. 85620, 2005-Ohio-5439. 
_________________ 
 
O’CONNOR, J. 
{¶ 1} In this matter, we address whether claims brought pursuant to 
provisions of the Revised Code identified in R.C. 4905.61 are subject to the one-
year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11 or the six-year statute of 
limitations found in R.C. 2305.07.  We conclude that R.C. 4905.61 is a penalty 
statute and that the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.11 applies to it.  
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} The appellees in these consolidated actions, Discount Cellular, 
Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc., and Tele-Trak (collectively, “Cleveland 
Mobile”), are cellular-telephone-service resellers.  Their business includes the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
purchase of wholesale cellular telephone service and the rebranding and 
marketing of that service for retail resale to the public.  Appellants, Ameritech 
Mobile Communications, Inc., and Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership 
(collectively, “Ameritech”), AirTouch Cellular Eastern Region, L.L.C., and 
Verizon Wireless, a.k.a. New Par (collectively, “Verizon”), provide wholesale 
and retail cellular telephone service. 
{¶ 3} In December 2003, Discount Cellular filed a complaint against 
Ameritech in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  Six weeks later, in 
February 2004, Cleveland Mobile filed a complaint against Verizon, Ameritech, 
and AirTouch Cellular Eastern Region, L.L.C., in the same court.  In both actions, 
the appellees sought treble damages under R.C. 4905.61, which provides:  “If any 
public utility or railroad does, or causes to be done, any act or thing prohibited by 
Chapters 4901., 4903., 4905., 4907., 4909., 4921., 4923., and 4925. of the 
Revised Code, or declared to be unlawful, or omits to do any act or thing required 
by such chapters, or by order of the public utilities commission, such public utility 
or railroad is liable to the person, firm, or corporation injured thereby in treble the 
amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation, failure, or 
omission. Any recovery under this section does not affect a recovery by the state 
for any penalty provided for in such chapters.”  In support of their claims, the 
appellees relied on an order by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, In the 
Matter of the Complaint of Westside Cellular, Inc. v. New Par Cos., No. 93-1758-
RC-CSS, Jan. 18, 2001 (“Cellnet”), that had found that Ameritech and Verizon 
had violated commission orders and portions of R.C. Chapter 4905 by engaging in 
unlawful discriminatory pricing.1  In three separate cases, we affirmed the 
                                                          
 
1.  “[B]efore a Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction to hear a complaint for treble damages 
under R.C. 4905.61, there first must be a determination by the commission that a violation has in 
fact taken place.”  Milligan v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 191, 194, 10 O.O.3d 352, 
383 N.E.2d 575.  Although the appellees were not parties to Cellnet, we have not found that R.C. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
commission’s order but found that the unlawful acts had occurred from 1993 
though 1998 rather than from 1995 through 1998, as the commission had found.  
Westside Cellular, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 165, 2002-Ohio-7119, 
781 N.E.2d 199, ¶ 10; Cincinnati SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Pub. Util. Comm., 98 
Ohio St.3d 282, 2002-Ohio-7235, 781 N.E.2d 1012, ¶ 2; New Par v. Pub. Util. 
Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 277, 2002-Ohio-7245, 781 N.E.2d 1008, ¶ 2. 
{¶ 4} Ameritech and Verizon moved to dismiss the appellees’ 
complaints, arguing that the claims are barred by the one-year statute of 
limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11, which governs actions involving statutes 
“for a penalty or forfeiture.”  Appellees opposed the motions, arguing that the six-
year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.07 applies because R.C. 4905.61 
is a remedial statute.  The court of common pleas granted the motions to dismiss, 
finding that the statute was penal. 
{¶ 5} The court of appeals reversed.  It held that R.C 4905.61 is a 
remedial statute because the statute is intended to address individual wrongs and 
refers to “damages” rather than to a “penalty” or “forfeiture.”  It thus concluded 
that the six-year statute of limitations applied and that the claims had been 
dismissed improperly by operation of the one-year statute of limitations.  
Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., Cuyahoga 
App. No. 85618, 2005-Ohio-5437, 2005 WL 2589998; Cleveland Mobile Radio 
Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, Cuyahoga App. No. 85620, 2005-Ohio-5439, 
2005 WL 2600635.  We accepted discretionary jurisdiction over both cases and 
sua sponte consolidated them for briefing, argument, and decision.  Cleveland 
Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 108 Ohio St.3d 1508, 2006-Ohio-
1329, 844 N.E.2d 854. 
ANALYSIS 
                                                                                                                                                              
 
4905.61 precludes nonparties from filing an action for treble damages based on prior commission 
orders.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 6} R.C. 4905.61, the treble-damages statute, does not contain a statute 
of limitations.  Accordingly, we turn to R.C. Chapter 2305 to determine the 
appropriate limitations period.  See Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. 
Co., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 281, 282, 638 N.E.2d 991. 
{¶ 7} R.C. 2305.07 provides: “[A]n action upon * * * a liability created 
by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty * * * shall be brought within six years 
after the cause thereof accrued.”  In contrast, R.C. 2305.11(A) provides for a one-
year statute of limitations for “an action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture.”  
As the court of appeals noted in considering which statute of limitations applies, 
the salient question is whether R.C. 4905.61 “creates a statutory liability or 
whether it is a ‘statute for a penalty,’ i.e., whether it is a remedial statute or a 
penalty statu[t]e.”  Discount Cellular, Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 85618, 2005-
Ohio-5437, 2005 WL 2589998, ¶ 8, citing Cosgrove, 70 Ohio St.3d at 283, 638 
N.E.2d 991. 
{¶ 8} In concluding that the statute was governed by the six-year statute 
of limitations, the court of appeals relied primarily on our decision in Rosette v. 
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 105 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-1736, 825 
N.E.2d 599.  There, we concluded that R.C. 5301.36(C) is a remedial statute and 
thus subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.07.  
Rosette, 105 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-1736, 825 N.E.2d 599, syllabus. 
{¶ 9} Our holding in Rosette was based on the plain language of that 
statute, which provides, “[A] mortgagor may recover, in a civil action, damages of 
two hundred and fifty dollars” if a mortgagee failed to record the satisfaction of a 
residential mortgage with the county recorder within ninety days of satisfaction.  
See R.C. 5301.36(C).2  Indeed, we focused expressly on the clear statutory 
                                                          
 
2.  R.C. 5301.36(C) states: “If the mortgagee fails to comply with division (B) of this section, the 
mortgagor may recover, in a civil action, damages of two hundred fifty dollars. This division does 
not preclude or affect any other legal remedies that may be available to the mortgagor.” 
January Term, 2007 
5 
language and the fact that had the General Assembly intended to do so, it could 
have used the term “forfeiture” or “penalty” rather than “damages” in the statute.  
Rosette, 105 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-1736, 825 N.E.2d 599, ¶ 13-14.  We 
reasoned that in enacting the statute and choosing the particular words that were 
codified in it, the legislature intended to provide a remedy to an aggrieved 
individual mortgagor rather than to impose a penalty upon the wrongdoing 
mortgagee.  We held that to conclude that the General Assembly had intended to 
create a penalty in R.C. 5301.36(C) rather than to provide for damages, we would 
be required to ignore the plain term “damages” in the statutory language and to 
insert the term “penalty” or “forfeiture” into the statute.  We declined to do so, 
noting that the legislature has used the latter terms in other statutes and could have 
used them again if it so intended.  Rosette at ¶ 14, quoting R.C. 1321.56 (“ ‘Any 
person who willfully violates section 1321.57 of the Revised Code shall forfeit to 
the borrower the amount of interest paid by the borrower’ ” [emphasis added in 
Rosette]) and R.C. 149.351(B)(2) (“ ‘any person who is aggrieved by the removal, 
destruction, mutilation, or transfer of * * * a [public] record, may commence * * * 
[a] civil action to recover a forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars for 
each violation’ ” [emphasis added in Rosette]). 
{¶ 10} In the instant cases, the court of appeals held that the analysis in 
Rosette applied “equally” to the analysis here.  Discount Cellular, Inc., Cuyahoga 
App. No. 85618, 2005-Ohio-5437, 2005 WL 2589998, ¶ 14.  It concluded that the 
General Assembly chose the word “damages” rather than “penalty” or “forfeiture” 
to describe the liability to be imposed on a public utility for violation of R.C. 
Chapter 4905 and that that language “indicates that the statute was not intended to 
inflict a penalty, but rather, allow an aggrieved party to recover damages.”  Id. at 
¶ 14-15.  It then concluded that R.C. Chapter 4905 was primarily remedial and 
that the six-year statute of limitations applied.  Id. at ¶ 16-17. 
{¶ 11} In reviewing that decision, we begin with familiar law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 12} In construing a statute, the reviewing court must ascertain the 
intent of the legislature in enacting the statute.  Rosette, 105 Ohio St.3d 296, 
2005-Ohio-1736, 825 N.E.2d 599, ¶ 12.  To determine the intent of a statute, a 
court looks to the language of the statute, giving effect to the words used.  Rice v. 
CertainTeed Corp. (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 417, 419, 704 N.E.2d 1217.  A court is 
neither to insert words that were not used by the legislature nor to delete words 
that were used.  Id. 
{¶ 13} In considering the language of R.C. 4905.61, the court of appeals 
focused on the term “damages” without also noting the modifying word “treble.”  
R.C. 4905.61 provides that if a public utility violates certain laws, “such public 
utility * * * is liable to the person, firm, or corporation injured thereby in treble 
the amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation, failure, or 
omission.”  See Rice, 84 Ohio St.3d at 420, 704 N.E.2d 1217.  The court of 
appeals failed to give due consideration to the meaning of “damages” as modified 
by “treble.”  We believe that the court missed an important distinction between 
the statute at issue here and the one at issue in Rosette. 
{¶ 14} The statute at issue in Rosette, R.C. 5301.36(C), expressly 
provided for “damages of two hundred fifty dollars.”  Consequently, that damages 
provision is more akin to stipulated or liquidated damages than to punitive 
damages.  See Lake Ridge Academy v. Carney (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 376, 382, 
613 N.E.2d 183. 
{¶ 15} Unlike R.C. 5301.36(C), R.C. 4905.61 contains a treble-damages 
provision.  That fact alone is not dispositive, however.  See Rice, 84 Ohio St.3d at 
421, 704 N.E.2d 1217, and Cosgrove, 70 Ohio St.3d at 289, 638 N.E.2d 991, 
particularly given that the statute’s treble-damages provision has a compensatory 
side that serves remedial purposes as well as “punitive objectives.”  Cook Cty. v. 
United States ex rel. Chandler (2003), 538 U.S. 119, 130, 123 S.Ct. 1239, 155 
L.Ed.2d 247.  See, also, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. 
January Term, 2007 
7 
(1985), 473 U.S. 614, 635-636, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444, citing Brunswick 
Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (1977), 429 U.S. 477, 485-486, 97 S.Ct. 690, 
50 L.Ed.2d 701. 
{¶ 16} In undertaking the inquiry into whether the statute is remedial or 
punitive, it is not possible to determine the precise “tipping point between 
payback and punishment.”  Cook Cty., 538 U.S. at 130, 123 S.Ct. 1239, 155 
L.Ed.2d 247.  Rather, we are guided by the particular statute at issue in the 
litigation and its context.  Id.; see, also, Rice, 84 Ohio St.3d at 421, 704 N.E.2d 
1217.  Furthermore, we must determine whether the primary purpose of the 
statute is to penalize or to remedy and compensate.  Cosgrove, 70 Ohio St.3d at 
288, 638 N.E.2d 991, citing Porter v. Household Fin. Corp. of Columbus 
(S.D.Ohio 1974), 385 F.Supp. 336, 342.  In making that determination, we must 
not focus solely on the statute’s ultimate goals or effect.  Instead, we look to the 
methods used by the General Assembly to accomplish the goals and overall 
purpose of the statutory scheme.  Rice, 84 Ohio St.3d at 419-420, 704 N.E.2d 
1217; Cosgrove, 70 Ohio St.3d at 284, 288, 638 N.E.2d 991. 
{¶ 17} R.C. Title 49 reflects a comprehensive statutory regime that 
governs the business activities of public utilities.  In addressing the nature of R.C. 
4905.61, however, we note that it differs from R.C. Chapter 4112, which governs 
the practice of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and through which an aggrieved 
may seek redress through a variety of remedies.  See, e.g., Cosgrove, 70 Ohio 
St.3d at 288-289, 638 N.E.2d 991 (Resnick, J., concurring).  R.C. 4905.61 is more 
narrowly tailored, and like other sections in the statutes that constitute R.C. Title 
49, it compels public utilities to comply with the regulatory rubric through the 
imposition of penalties or forfeitures.  See, e.g., R.C. 4905.54 (imposing a fine of 
up to $10,000 for a statutory violation or noncompliance with a commission 
order, 4905.57 and 4905.59 (governing actions for forfeitures). These provisions 
do not offer a mechanism for consumers to pursue relief against utilities. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 18} Moreover, R.C. 4905.61 is very specific.  It appears to be the only 
mechanism through which the legislature permits an injured party to obtain 
damages after liability is found by the commission.  The statute thus furthers the 
legislature’s goal of ensuring compliance with the statutes governing public 
utilities and with commission orders.  And notably for our purposes, in so doing, 
the statute does not simply compensate an injured party with an award for actual 
damages but, rather, incorporates a treble-damage award provision and provides 
that any recovery by a private plaintiff pursuant to it does not preclude the state 
from seeking additional penalties under R.C. 4905.99.  Thus, the statute was 
designed to augment enforcement of the law and to deter violations through 
penalties rather than to simply compensate consumers for violations.  See Lahke 
v. Cincinnati Bell, Inc. (1981), 1 Ohio App.3d 114, 117, 1 OBR 420, 439 N.E.2d 
928 (“we conceive that the provision for private recovery of treble damages for 
statutory violations * * * aids in [the] enforcement [of commission orders] by 
furnishing another incentive for the utility company to operate in accordance with 
[the commission’s] dictates”). 
{¶ 19} Based on these and other factors, we conclude that the statute was 
intended to penalize public utilities for failing to comply with their statutory 
obligations.  That conclusion is in accord with the decision of the only other court 
of appeals to consider the issue presented herein, Usternal v. Gem Boat Serv., 
Inc., Ottawa App. No. 91-OT-051, 1992 WL 337600, *3.  Other Ohio courts have 
concluded that the treble-damages provision in this statute was designed to deter 
utilities from ignoring the commission’s authority and the requirements set forth 
in R.C. Title 49.  See Lahke, 1 Ohio App.3d at 117, 1 OBR 420, 439 N.E.2d 928; 
Fed. Res. Bank of Cleveland v. Purolator Courier Corp. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 
296, 300-302, 13 OBR 362, 469 N.E.2d 542, fn. 5.  See, also, French v. Dwiggins 
(1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 32, 35-36, 9 OBR 123, 458 N.E.2d 827 (noting that the 
January Term, 2007 
9 
mandatory treble-damages provision in R.C. 1345.09(B) was intended by the 
General Assembly as a penalty for misconduct and as a deterrent). 
{¶ 20} Because we conclude that the statute was designed to deter public 
utilities from committing regulatory violations and to punish them for failing to 
comply with the provisions set forth in R.C. Chapter 49, we also conclude that the 
legislature’s primary intent in enacting R.C. 4905.61 was to provide “a statute for 
a penalty.”  R.C. 2305.11(A). 
{¶ 21} Our conclusion is consistent with the nature of this particular 
statute, which requires, as a prerequisite to filing suit, a prior determination by the 
Public Utilities Commission that the utility violated a designated public utilities 
statute or commission order.  R.C. 4905.61; Milligan v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. (1978), 
56 Ohio St.2d 191, 10 O.O.3d 352, 383 N.E.2d 575, paragraph one of the 
syllabus.  Given that the statute requires a prior finding of a violation, a plaintiff 
in a claim brought pursuant to R.C. 4905.61 need only show causation and 
damages flowing from the adjudicated violation.  No reason exists to allow for the 
longer (six-year) statute of limitations set forth in R.C 2305.07.  See Liddell v. 
SCA Servs. of Ohio, Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 6, 10, 635 N.E.2d 1233 (statutes of 
limitations are designed to ensure fairness to a defendant, to foster prompt 
prosecution of causes of action, to avoid fraudulent or “stale” claims, and to avoid 
inconvenience resulting from delay).  Accordingly, R.C. 4905.61 is subject to the 
one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(A). 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER and CUPP, 
JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
{¶ 22} The majority suggests that in R.C. 4905.61, “treble the amount of 
damages” doesn’t mean “damages times three,” but rather “a penalty equal to 
damages times three.”  The majority also apparently doesn’t believe that the 
General Assembly knows the difference between damages and penalties.  Finally, 
the majority apparently wants to reverse Rosette v. Countrywide Home Loans, 
Inc., 105 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-1736, 825 N.E.2d 599, but won’t because of 
the unctuous three-part test set forth in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256. 
{¶ 23} “Treble damages” is not a secret code word.  Even though the 
majority uses the term “treble damages,” R.C. 4905.61 does not; it uses the 
approximate equivalent “treble the amount of damages.”  See Black’s Law 
Dictionary (8th Ed.2004) 419 (treble damages are “[d]amages that, by statute, are 
three times the amount that the fact-finder determines is owed”).  There is no 
mysterious intent behind the General Assembly’s use of “treble the amount of 
damages.”  I would assume that the General Assembly intended the term to have 
its normal and ordinary meaning.  I would not, as the majority opinion does, add 
the word “penalty” to the definition of “treble the amount of damages.”  Neither 
would I delete “the amount of,” as the majority does.  To do either violates the 
most elementary principle of statutory construction, which is to give effect to the 
words used and not delete words used or insert words not used.  Rice v. 
CertainTeed Corp. (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 417, 419, 704 N.E.2d 1217. 
{¶ 24} Not only does the majority insert words into and delete words from 
R.C. 4905.61, it also misconstrues the context in which “treble the amount of 
damages” is used.  The majority opinion correctly states that R.C. Title 49 
"reflects a comprehensive statutory regime that governs the business activities of 
public utilities" and "compels public utilities to comply with the regulatory rubric 
through the imposition of penalties and forfeitures."  See, e.g., R.C. 4905.54, 
4905.57, and 4905.59.  As far as the majority and I can tell, there is only one 
January Term, 2007 
11 
provision in R.C. Title 49 that allows an injured party to obtain damages:  R.C. 
4905.61.  Most people would take the General Assembly's sole use of "damages," 
surrounded by a sea of penalties and forfeitures, as proof positive that the General 
Assembly intended the damages, whether trebled or not, to be damages and not a 
penalty. 
{¶ 25} The majority is not so intrepid as that.  Instead, it points to a 
separate sentence in R.C. 4905.61, which states, "Any recovery under this section 
does not affect a recovery by the state for any penalty provided for in such 
chapters" and concludes that R.C. 4905.61 "was intended to penalize public 
utilities for failing to comply with their statutory obligations."  I agree that the 
penalty provision of R.C. 4905.61 was intended to penalize public utilities, but am 
not creative enough to conclude that the General Assembly intended the damages 
provision to do anything other than what damages do: compensate an injured 
party.  Perhaps if I, as the majority opinion does, gratuitously called the penalty 
provision of R.C. 4905.61 an "additional" penalty, I could convince myself that 
damages are penalties. 
{¶ 26} I conclude that the General Assembly used the phrase "treble the 
amount of damages" not to impose a penalty, but to give injured parties an 
incentive to pursue cases that would otherwise be too small to justify the expense 
of legal action.  This conclusion is sensible and doesn't require the legalistic 
contortions necessary to transform "treble the amount of damages" into "a penalty 
equal to three times damages."  This conclusion also allows me to assume that the 
General Assembly knows the difference between damages and penalties.    
{¶ 27} In Rosette, 105 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-1736, 825 N.E.2d 599, 
¶ 13-14, this court stated: 
{¶ 28} "The statutory language is clear: R.C. 5301.36(C) expressly 
provides that a mortgagor 'in a civil action' may sue for 'damages.' To conclude 
that R.C. 5301.36(C) creates a penalty, this court would have to delete the term 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
'damages,' a word used by the legislature, and insert the term 'penalty' or 
'forfeiture,' words not chosen by the legislature. Doing so would flout our 
responsibility to give effect to the words selected by the legislature in enacting a 
statute. 
{¶ 29} "Clearly, the General Assembly could have used the term 'penalty' 
or 'forfeiture' if it had intended R.C. 5301.36(C) to create an action for a penalty 
or forfeiture. Indeed, the legislature has used such penalty/forfeiture language in 
other statutes. See R.C. 1321.56 ('[a]ny person who willfully violates section 
1321.57 of the Revised Code shall forfeit to the borrower the amount of interest 
paid by the borrower'); see, also, R.C. 149.351(B)(2) (providing that any person 
aggrieved by the removal, destruction, transfer, or mutilation of a public record 
may bring a civil action to recover a 'forfeiture in the amount of one thousand 
dollars for each violation'). (Emphasis added.) To presume that the legislature 
meant 'penalty' or 'forfeiture' when it used the term 'damages' is to presume 
imprecision on the part of the General Assembly. We decline to make such a 
presumption in this case." 
{¶ 30} In short, less than two years ago, a majority of this court said 
essentially what I have said today.  Today, a majority of this court reaches a 
contrary conclusion, though it does not reverse Rosette.  (The liquidated damages 
of Rosette serve the same purpose as “treble the amount of damages” in this case: 
to give injured parties an incentive to pursue cases that would otherwise be too 
small to justify the expense of legal action.)  Blind adherence to the absurd 
concept that this court cannot review and reverse its own reasoning whenever its 
prior reasoning is easy to apply, as stated in Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-
Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, paragraph one of the syllabus, will result in many 
opinions being effectively, but not explicitly, overruled.  Cases like Rosette will 
live in limbo, good law for all intents and purposes, but in reality, legal traps 
ready to ensnare even vigilant attorneys.  It doesn't make sense.  If a majority of 
January Term, 2007 
13 
this court determines that one of its prior decisions should be overruled, it should 
overrule the prior decision.  To do otherwise is to abdicate its role as a court of 
last resort.  Still, I would hope that when this court overrules decisions, it will 
have better reasons for such action than it does today.  I dissent. 
__________________ 
Tricarichi & Carnes, L.L.C., and Carla M. Tricarichi; and Randy J. Hart 
and Mark Griffin, for appellees. 
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Mark I. Wallach, James F. Lang, and 
William J. Michael; and McLaughlin & McCaffrey, L.L.P., and John F. 
McCaffrey, for appellants Ameritech Mobile Communications, L.L.C., and 
Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership. 
Zeiger, Tigges & Little, L.L.P., and John W. Zeiger; and Kirkland & Ellis, 
L.L.P., Stephen R. Patton, P.C., and Robert R. Gasaway, for appellants Verizon 
Wireless, a.k.a New Par, Verizon Wireless, and AirTouch Eastern Region, L.L.C. 
Bricker & Eckler L.L.P., Kurtis A. Tunnell, Anne Marie Sferra, and 
Vladimir P. Belo, urging reversal for amici curiae, Ohio Manufacturers 
Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Business/Ohio, 
and Ohio Insurance Institute. 
______________________