Stanley Miller Construction Co. v. Ohio School Facilities Commission
950 N.E.2d 218
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Stanley Miller sought en banc consideration or reconsideration of a December 28, 2010 decision reversing Court of Claims judgments.
- OSFC and related parties opposed, Stanley Miller replied in support of its applications, and the court denied both requests.
- The court addressed whether an intradistrict conflict existed regarding a vain-act exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies in state contracting cases.
- The court held Conti is no longer valid law in the district due to Cleveland Constr., resolving conflicts on the vain-act issue.
- The court rejected Stanley Miller’s argument for prospective application of Cleveland Constr. and denied reconsideration under App.R. 26.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether en banc review was necessary to resolve intradistrict conflict | Miller asserted a conflict requiring en banc review. | OSFC argued no conflict exists and en banc unnecessary. | Denied en banc consideration. |
| Whether Conti remains valid law after Cleveland Constr. overruled it | Miller argued Conti should still apply for its vested rights. | Cleveland Constr. overruled Conti; no vain-act exception exists. | Conti not valid; no conflict requiring en banc. |
| Whether there is a conflict between decisions necessitating reconsideration under App.R. 16 | Miller urged reconsideration based on Cleveland Constr. and prospective effects. | Court previously analyzed and rejected the prospective application claim. | Reconsideration denied. |
| Whether Cleveland Constr. should have prospective application | Miller claimed equitable impact and vested rights if applied prospectively. | Court already rejected prospective-only effect in prior ruling. | Prospective-only application rejected; decision stands. |
| Adequacy of Stanley Miller’s support in its merits brief for its positions | Incorporation of arguments from prior motions supported its position. | Appellate rules require separate, explicit arguments; mere incorporation is improper. | Court refused to adopt improper incorporation; reconsideration denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conti Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Admin. Servs., 90 Ohio App.3d 462 (1993) (recognition of a vain-act exception previously; later overruled by Cleveland Constr.)
- Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 2010-Ohio-2906 (10th Dist. No. 09AP-822) (overruled Conti; held no vain-act exception exists)
- McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., 180 Ohio App.3d 810 (2009-Ohio-362) (conflict exists when intradistrict decisions conflict on law; en banc generally recognized)
- In re J.J., 111 Ohio St.3d 205 (2006-Ohio-5484) (intraconflict resolution and expedited resolution standards for intradistrict conflicts)
- State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334 (1996) (standard for reconsideration of appellate decisions)