Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Beifuss v. Westerville Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1998See Beifuss v. Westerville Bd. of Edn. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 187, 191 , 525 N.E.2d 20, 24 . 1998See Beifuss v. Westerville Bd. of Edn. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 187, 191 , 525 N.E.2d 20, 24 . | 2 | 2 |
Worrell v. Multipress, Inc.green2 sentences2026Operators' Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2007-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72 (a creditor is not entitled to prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(A) for a prevailing wage claim that arose as a matter of law under a city charter because that type of claim is not listed in the statute). {¶93} Furthermore, “[p]rejudgment interest is not available pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(A) unless there is an amount due and payable . . .” (Citations omitted.) Worrell v. Multipress, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 241, 249 (1989); see also Royal Elec. 2026Operators' Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2007-Ohio-3831, ¶ 72 (a creditor is not entitled to prejudgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(A) for a prevailing wage claim that arose as a matter of law under a city charter because that type of claim is not listed in the statute). {¶93} Furthermore, “[p]rejudgment interest is not available pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(A) unless there is an amount due and payable . . .” (Citations omitted.) Worrell v. Multipress, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 241, 249 (1989); see also Royal Elec. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Dillard Department Stores v. Ryangreen2 sentences2010See id., 122 Ohio St.3d 241 , 2009-Ohio-2683 , 910 N.E.2d 438 . {¶ 35} Based on the foregoing, the board misapplied Section 8.2.4.15 of the evaluation criteria to the bid submitted by The Painting Company. {¶ 36} The Painting Company has also demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that the board failed to exercise sound discretion because in erroneously disqualifying The Painting Company’s bid, it relied on a mistaken application of a single criterion without considering any of the remaining criteria. {¶ 37} The Painting Company was the lowest bidder on the project by a significant am 2010See id., 122 Ohio St.3d 241 , 2009-Ohio-2683 , 910 N.E.2d 438 . {¶ 35} Based on the foregoing, the board misapplied Section 8.2.4.15 of the evaluation criteria to the bid submitted by The Painting Company. {¶ 36} The Painting Company has also demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that the board failed to exercise sound discretion because in erroneously disqualifying The Painting Company’s bid, it relied on a mistaken application of a single criterion without considering any of the remaining criteria. {¶ 37} The Painting Company was the lowest bidder on the project by a significant am | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Evans v. Mooregreen1 sentence2010The law’s primary purpose “ ‘is to support the integrity of the collective bargaining process by preventing the undercutting of employee wages in the private construction sector.’ ” Bergman at ¶ 10 , quoting Moore at 91, 431 N.E.2d 311 . {¶ 15} R.C. 4115.16(A) authorizes an “interested party” to file a complaint with the director of commerce alleging a prevailing-wage violation. | 1 | 1 |
Episcopal Retirement Homes, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Industrial Relationsgreen2 sentences2009See Episcopal Retirement, 61 Ohio St.3d at 369 , 575 N.E.2d 134 (a project must be constructed “for a public authority” in order for the prevailing-wage statutes to apply); Ohio Adm.Code 4101:9-4-02(BB)(l) and (2) (defining “public improvement” as a structure “Constructed” by or for a public authority). 2009See Episcopal Retirement, 61 Ohio St.3d at 369 , 575 N.E.2d 134 (a project must be constructed “for a public authority” in order for the prevailing-wage statutes to apply); Ohio Adm.Code 4101:9-4-02(BB)(l) and (2) (defining “public improvement” as a structure “Constructed” by or for a public authority). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex. rel. Northern Ohio Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Barberton City School District Board of Education
green
2 sentences2011Bd. of Edn., 188 Ohio App.3d 395 , 2010-Ohio-1826 , 935 N.E.2d 861 , which incorporates both common-law standing and statutory standing in a two-part test. {¶ 21} Secondly, we reject Rapier’s argument that R.C. 4115.03(F)(4) limits the definition of an “interested party” to an association whose member(s) have submitted a bid on the particular contract from which the alleged prevailing-wage violation stems. 2011Bd. of Edn., 188 Ohio App.3d 395 , 2010-Ohio-1826 , 935 N.E.2d 861 , which incorporates both common-law standing and statutory standing in a two-part test. {¶ 21} Secondly, we reject Rapier’s argument that R.C. 4115.03(F)(4) limits the definition of an “interested party” to an association whose member(s) have submitted a bid on the particular contract from which the alleged prevailing-wage violation stems. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ohio Valley Associated Builders & Contractors v. Industrial Power Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Id., 190 Ohio App.3d 273 , 2010-Ohio-4930 , 941 N.E.2d 849, at ¶ 24 . 2011Id., 190 Ohio App.3d 273 , 2010-Ohio-4930 , 941 N.E.2d 849, at ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
City of Middletown v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences2011Similarly, the trial court properly declined to interpret the term “public improvement” broadly, when doing so would contradict basic principles of standing, including the common-law requirement that a party possess a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Middletown v. Ferguson (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 71, 75 , 25 OBR 125, 495 N.E.2d 380 . 2011Similarly, the trial court properly declined to interpret the term “public improvement” broadly, when doing so would contradict basic principles of standing, including the common-law requirement that a party possess a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Middletown v. Ferguson (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 71, 75 , 25 OBR 125, 495 N.E.2d 380 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
U.S. Corrections Corp. v. Ohio Department of Industrial Relations
green
2 sentences2009Relations (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 210, 219 , 652 N.E.2d 766 . {¶ 16} A “public authority” is defined as “any officer, board, or commission of the state or any political subdivision of the state, authorized to enter into a contract for the construction of a public improvement or to construct the same by the direct employment of labor, or any institution supported in whole or in part by public funds and said sections apply to expenditures of such institutions made in whole or in part from public funds.” R.C. 4115.03(A). {¶ 17} Northwestern argues that an institution defined as a public authority i 2009Relations (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 210, 219 , 652 N.E.2d 766 . {¶ 16} A “public authority” is defined as “any officer, board, or commission of the state or any political subdivision of the state, authorized to enter into a contract for the construction of a public improvement or to construct the same by the direct employment of labor, or any institution supported in whole or in part by public funds and said sections apply to expenditures of such institutions made in whole or in part from public funds.” R.C. 4115.03(A). {¶ 17} Northwestern argues that an institution defined as a public authority i | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.