State ex rel. Ohio Mechanical Contracting Industry, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

605 N.E.2d 386, 65 Ohio St. 3d 1210
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 11, 1992
DocketNo. 92-1181
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 605 N.E.2d 386 (State ex rel. Ohio Mechanical Contracting Industry, Inc. v. City of Cleveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Ohio Mechanical Contracting Industry, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 605 N.E.2d 386, 65 Ohio St. 3d 1210 (Ohio 1992).

Opinion

This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus and was considered in a manner prescribed by law.

According to the complaint filed in this action, respondent city of Cleveland (“city”) planned to renovate a municipal building and solicited bids on the renovations. The city desires to hire a single general contractor and therefore instructed bidders to submit “single prime contract bids” (i.e., bids for the entire project) only.

Relators, two mechanical trade contractors and two organizations representing such contractors, contend that R.C. 153.50 et seq. requires the city to allow [1212]*1212bids for portions of the work, such as electrical work, plumbing, or heating. Each relator asked the city to modify the bid package to allow partial bids. The city declined. On June 11, 1992, the city unsealed the bids, whereupon relators filed this action. Respondents, city of Cleveland et al., filed a motion to dismiss.

Relators seek a writ “directing Respondents to disregard the bids as opened, and to advertise and receive separate and distinct proposals for the furnishing of materials and doing the work on” the renovations. Relators’ true objects are a prohibitory injunction and declaratory judgment, neither of which the court has jurisdiction to grant.

Accordingly, because relators seek relief the court cannot constitutionally give,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that respondents’ motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick
2022 Ohio 306 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson
1999 Ohio 130 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers
1998 Ohio 276 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward
689 N.E.2d 971 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
State ex rel. Governor v. Taft
640 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
605 N.E.2d 386, 65 Ohio St. 3d 1210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ohio-mechanical-contracting-industry-inc-v-city-of-ohio-1992.