Opinion ID: 2691679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: {¶ 46} The appellants' memorandum in support of jurisdiction contained five propositions of law, including the following: {¶ 47} Proposition of Law No. 3: Appellees' de facto debarment rule is preempted by R.C. Chapter 4115, a comprehensive scheme balancing the competing public interests in prevailing wage compliance and competition for public contracts. {¶ 48} Proposition of Law No. 4: The settlement agreements and court proceedings cannot legally be considered as establishing a violation of law, 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO because such [a] finding would be contrary to both the language of the agreements and the public policy favoring resolution of disputes through mediation and settlement. {¶ 49} Proposition of Law No. 5: Because the state has not ‘found’ that [The Painting Company] violated the prevailing wage law within the last ten years, Appellees abused their discretion because either the Standards are void for vagueness or the Commissioners' interpretation constituted an unannounced bid criterion. {¶ 50} This court accepted jurisdiction over Proposition of Law III only. State ex rel. Associated Builders & Contrs. of Cent. Ohio v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 120 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2008-Ohio-6166, 897 N.E.2d 651. I dissented. Id. {¶ 51} As I have explained in the past, I disagree with this court's practice of picking and choosing, within a case, the issues that we are willing to review. If a case is worthy of review, in the interests of providing justice to the parties and because, until we see the entire record, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the interplay of various issues, all appealed issues should be before us. Whether we address each issue at that point is, of course, within our considered discretion. Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio2463, 909 N.E.2d 106, ¶ 60 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). {¶ 52} Apparently a majority of this court now agrees with my dissent in Meyer because, even though this court accepted jurisdiction over Proposition of Law III only, the majority opinion also addresses Propositions of Law IV and V. I do not disagree with that approach; in fact, I applaud it. But wouldn't it be better for parties and their attorneys if this court accepted jurisdiction without limitation? The current practice is confusing. Attorneys don't know whether they should argue issues that aren't before us; based on this case, they should. 16 January Term, 2010 Attorneys also don't know whether they can safely ignore issues that we have told them are not before us; based on this case, they shouldn't.