Arthur Young & Co. v. Kelly

In Arthur Young & Co. v. Kelly, 68 Ohio App. 3d 287, 588 N.E.2d 233 (Ohio App. 1990), the Court dealt with a statute almost identical to 1390 providing for restitution to the injured party. In that decision, the plaintiff filed contempt proceedings against a former employee of the accounting firm alleging violations of a preliminary injunction. The Court affirmed the award to plaintiff for costs of prosecuting the order, including attorney fees. The court rejected a narrow reading of the word restitution and instead held that it included damages for losses sustained during and as a consequence of the breach. It held "the authority of the trial court to award the type of monetary damages it did cannot be questioned." Citing ConTex Inc. v. Consolidated Technologies, Inc., 40 Ohio App. 3d 94, 531 N.E.2d 1353, (Ohio App. 1988), the Court expressly stated, "Even the award of attorney fees has been sanctioned by Ohio law."