stating in the context of applying an unambiguous statute that "a court must give effect to the natural and most obvious import of a statute's language, avoiding any subtle or forced constructions"
How later courts described this case
- stating in the context of applying an unambiguous statute that "a court must give effect to the natural and most obvious import of a statute's language, avoiding any subtle or forced constructions"
- refusing to apply last antecedent rule in a manner that “imposes a forced construction”
- applying rule of last antecedent and reading statute according to “the natural and most obvious import of the statutory language”
- construing the “no person may” language as mandatory
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
concurring.
{¶ 42} I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately because something about the case doesn’t seem right.
{¶ 43} There was great angst in the air. Payday lending was a scourge. It had to be eliminated or at least controlled. So the General Assembly enacted a bill, the Short-Term Lender Act (“STLA”), R.C. 1321.35 to 1321.48, to regulate short-term, or payday, loans. And then a funny thing happened: nothing. It was as if the STLA did not exist. Not a single lender in Ohio is subject to the law. How is this possible? How can the General Assembly set out to regulate a controversial industry and achieve absolutely nothing? Were the lobbyists *548 smarter than the legislators? Did the legislators realize that the bill was smoke and mirrors and would accomplish nothing?
Zeiger, Tigges & Little L.L.P., John W. Zeiger, and Stuart G. Parsell, for appellant.
Squire Sanders (US), L.L.P., Pierre H. Bergeron, and Colter L. Paulson, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Frederick E. Mills, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Council of Retail Merchants.
Sara Bruce, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Automobile Dealers Association.
The Mirman Law Firm, L.L.C., and Joel H. Mirman, urging reversal for amici curiae Norfleet Rives and Daniel Oglevee.
Dreher Tomkies Scheiderer, L.L.P., Darrell L. Dreher, and Elizabeth L. Anstaett, urging reversal for amicus curiae Richard F. Keck.
Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Julie K. Robie, Katherine B. Hollingsworth, and Thomas Mlakar; Ohio Poyerty Law Center, L.L.C., and Linda Cook; Southeastern Ohio Legal Services and Melissa Benson; Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, L.L.C., and Nicholas DiNardo; Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., and Stanley A. Hirtle; and Legal Aid Society of Columbus and Scott Torguson, urging affirmance for amici curiae Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Legal Aid Society of Columbus, Community Legal Aid Services, Inc., Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, L.L.C., Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., Legal Aid of Western Ohio, Inc., Ohio Poverty Law Center, L.L.C., ProSeniors, Inc., Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio, and Catholic Conference of Ohio.
Cannizzaro, Bridges, Jillisky & Streng, L.L.C., and Amy E. Gullifer, urging affirmance for amici curiae Center for Responsible Lending and National Consumer Law Center.