16 Ohio App. 3d 30 - Control Data Corp. v. Controlling Board’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably 127 Ohio App. 3d 312 - Tiemann v. University of Cincinnati (1998), 121 Ohio App. 3d 372 - Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services (1997)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kennedy v. Sampson · Bilyeu v. Motorists Mutual Ins. · 8 Ohio App. 3d 44 - State Ex Rel. Connors v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation · 7 Ohio App. 3d 318 - Perry v. Perry
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The granting of declaratory relief * * * [is a] matter of judicial discretion that will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Control Data's] stake in the outcome of this dispute lies in its status as a prospective bidder for the contract to supply computer equipment and services to the lottery commission. The Controlling Board's decision to waive the competitive bidding requirements applicable to the lottery commission's purchase of computer equipment, and the necessary professional services to maintain it, denied [Control Data] any opportunity to bid on the contract and compete with [it's competitor] for the lottery funds. As such CT Page 4034 [Control Data] had a sufficient stake in the outcome of a judicial controversy to allow it standing to bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when a decision of the Controlling Board is contrary to his personal opinion or the position for which his vote was cast. Sufficient representation of the public's interest could be provided by a citizen affected by the decision of the Controlling Board and not by allowing a member of the Board to take a partisan position and challenge the outcome.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.