Cedar Bay Construction, Inc. v. City of Fremont
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The single issue presented in this case is whether the municipality abused its discretion by allowing clarifications' and/or interpretations of a bid given by a bidding contractor after bids were opened, but before an award was made. For the reasons cited below, we hold the municipality did not abuse its discretion.
Under Ohio’s competitive bidding statute municipalities are required to make a “*'* * written contract with [the] lowest and best bidder after advertisement for not less than two nor more than four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.” R.C.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Rohde v. FarmerOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Steiner v. CusterOhio Supreme Court · 1940
- City of Dayton, ex rel. Scandrick v. City of Dayton Mayor McGeeOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Pincelli v. Ohio Bridge Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- Manofsky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Horkins v. Quality Chevrolet, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Howard v. WillsOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Deacon v. LandersOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.