# State, Ex Rel. Baker v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners

> Ohio Court of Appeals · February 1, 1988 · 46 Ohio App. 3d 39

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3716057

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, Ex Rel. Baker Et Al., Appellees, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 1, 1988
- **Citations:** 46 Ohio App. 3d 39; 545 N.E.2d 912; 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 131
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pryatel
- **Judges:** Nahra, Corrigan, Pryatel
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3716057

## Opinion text

Pryatel, P.J.,
dissenting. Respectfully, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that relators were entitled to mandamus. Specifically, I do not believe that relators had sufficient control of their business to qualify them for MBE certification. The relevant language of R.C. 122.71(E) is as follows:
“ ‘Owned and controlled’ means that at least fifty-one per cent of the business * * * is owned by persons who belong to one or more of the groups set forth in division (E)(1) of this section,
and that such owners have control over the management and day-to-day operations of the business
* * *.” (Emphasis added.)
The lease arrangement between the Yellow Cab Company and the drivers is a day-to-day agreement, terminable at will by either party. Furthermore, the contract with the county was for a one-year period. While R.C. 122.71 does not mandate a determination that relators could fulfill a one-year obligation, clearly the county’s contract does. Thus, I would reverse the lower court’s decision granting mandamus.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3716057. Public record. Not legal advice.