Skip to main content
R. Russell O'Rourke

R. O'Rourke’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • Dugan & Meyers Construction Co. v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2007
    Outcome:
    The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision de
    Description:
    We were Amicus Council for the American Subcontractors Association and ASA of Ohio. Dugan & Myers was delayed on the job from admittedly deficient plans and specifications. The trial court awarded damages to D&M and denies back charges to the ODAS for replacing D&M. The Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Spearin Doctrine should not be "extended" to cases like this.
  • Acoustic Ceiling & Partition v. Continental Building Systems

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Date:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Outcome:
    Case was settled prior to a Court of Appeals decision
    Description:
    We are amicus counsel for the American Subcontractors Association and ASA of Ohio. The trial court interpreted the "pay-if-paid" clause as being too vague to be enforceable, therefore read it as a "pay-WHEN-paid" clause. A Pay-IF-Paid clause makes payment to the contractor a condition precedent to the contractor's obligation to pay its subcontractor. A Pay-WHEN-Paid clause eliminated the condition precedent concept and reads it as a "timing only" provision and that if the contractor is not paid within a reasonable period of time, the contractor still has to pay the subcontractor. We are urging the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court's opinion.
  • J&H Reinforcing & Structural Erectors, Inc., v. OSFC

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Date:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Outcome:
    Pending in the Franklin County Court of Appeals
    Description:
    We are Amicus Counsel for the American Subcontractors Association and ASA of Ohio. J&H was delayed in its performance. The State prescribed contract forms require a contractor asking for an extension of time to supply a significant amount of information, including information which may not be available to it, particularly if it is not the cause of the delay. The trial court found in favor of J&H. The OSFC appealed arguing that strict compliance with the contract documents was appropriate.
  • KeyBank, NA v. Columbus Campus, LLC,

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Date:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Outcome:
    Pending in the Franklin County Court of Appeals
    Description:
    We are Amicus Counsel for the American Subcontractors Association and ASA of Ohio. The lender required the owner to place a contractual provision in its contract with the prime contractor that waived mechanic's lien rights and required the contractor to place similar language in its subcontracts, waiving mechanic's lien rights and requiring subcontractors to place similar language in their subcontracts, etc. The contractor did not place the language in the subcontracts. No subcontractor or material supplier directly waived its mechanic's lien rights via contract. The lender successfully argued to the trial court that the flowdown clause carries with it ancillary contract clauses such as mechanic's lien waivers. The lender was a construction lender and had the possibility of properly documenting its construction loan, but failed to do so and is now trying to enforce a principle that a contractor can waive mechanic's lien rights for all subcontractors and suppliers, however distant, by flowdown clause alone.
  • Mid-Ohio Mechanical, Inc., v. Carden Metal Fabricators, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Date:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Outcome:
    Successful: The Court of Appeals found in favor of the Lien Claimant.
    Description:
    We were Amicus Counsel for the American Subcontractors Association and ASA of Ohio. Mid-Ohio Mechanical installed a manufacturing line for the purposes of painting automotive bumpers. When they were not paid they filed a mechanic's lien. The contractor defended arguing that the installation of a manufacturing line was not an "improvement to real property" as required by the Ohio Mechanic's Lien Statute for the purposes of allowing a mechanic's lien to attach. This case traveled to the Court of Appeals twice from the trial court and to the Ohio Supreme Court. After the trial court initially granted the contractor’s motion for summary judgment against the lien claimant, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the lien claimant, ordering the case to trial. After the trial, the trial court found in favor of the lien claimant, which was again appealed. The trial court’s second ruling, in favor of the lien claimant was affirmed.