Legal Opinion

Consolo v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 2004No. 2003-0230PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} Appellees, including Santo Consolo, work as construction-equipment operators and master mechanics for appellant city of Cleveland. Thirty-eight of the 40 appellees are or were dues-paying members of appellant International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 (“Local 18”). On October 30, 2001, appellees filed a complaint in common pleas court seeking a declaratory judgment, a writ of mandamus, and a money judgment against appellants, asserting that appellants are illegally denying prevailing wages to appellees. Appellees contend that they are entitled to wages and benefits consistent…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. University Hospital v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Franklin County Law Enforcement Ass'n v. Fraternal Order of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Kinsey v. Board of TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. City of Cincinnati v. Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County & Municipal EmployeesOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Ohio Council 8 v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1994

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Davis v. Public Employees Retirement BoardOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State Ex Rel. City of Cleveland v. SutulaOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State ex rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State ex rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Fairland Assn. of Classroom Teachers v. Fairland Local Bd. of Edn.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API