Legal Opinion
Lathrop Co. v. City of Toledo
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 16, 1966No. 39416PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
The basic question presented here is whether Lathrop may recover for the extra work it performed.
Under section 19 of the contract, Lathrop was obligated to perform whatever extra work was ordered by the City. Under section 12(c), the City promised to pay for the extra work at the contract rate. However, the obligation to pay would attach only after certain restrictive conditions specified in the Toledo charter were met. In brief, the charter required (1) a written order of the city manager as to what extra work was to be done, (2) an agreement in writing as to the cost of the work and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Borough Construction Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Gearty v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Pincelli v. Ohio Bridge Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966
- Bellish v. C. I. T. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
- M. De Matteo Construction Co. v. Maine Turnpike AuthorityDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin County Convention Facilities AuthorityOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Richard Olsen v. Gerald T. McFaul SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
- Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- Shampton v. City of SpringboroOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Wilson Bennett, Inc. v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.