Chapter Three. Bidding. Patrick M. Miller and Molly Moss
|
|
- Marcia Nichols
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Chapter Three Bidding Patrick M. Miller and Molly Moss 3.01 Introduction Mutual Mistake Unilateral Mistake before Award of Contract Unilateral Mistake after Award of Contract Responsive Bid Defined Responsible Bid Defined Owner s Duty to Inform
2 24 Model Jury Instructions: Construction Litigation, 2nd Edition Chapter 3: Bidding 3.01 Introduction The instructions set forth in Chapter Three address a contracting party s efforts to avoid the effects of the contract based on a mistake, a contractor s right to withdraw a bid in limited circumstances, a contractor s compliance with bidding instructions, and an owner s duty to provide material information to the contractor. These instructions address both mutual and unilateral mistakes and, in the case of unilateral mistake, are specifically tailored to the construction bid process. The instructions and comments related to unilateral mistakes address instances in which the contractor refuses to perform services for the owner for the sum stated in its bid. The outcome in these instances often depends on the timing (before or after contract award) of when the contractor notifies the owner of the error and/or whether the owner knew or should have known of the error. The comments also provide examples of specific issues involving mutual and unilateral mistakes arising in the construction context. These instructions also discuss the contractor s duty to comply with bidding instructions. Government contracts are generally awarded to the responsible bidder with the lowest responsive bid. Responsible bidders have the qualifications to fully perform the contract requirements, whereas responsive bids adhere to the invitation for bids in all material respects. Additionally, these instructions address a contractor s right to withdraw a bid due to unintentional clerical or mathematical mistakes as well as an owner s duty to disclose important information not otherwise available to the contractor Mutual Mistake The law recognizes that certain contracts may be unenforceable because the parties to the contract made inaccurate assumptions or mistakes about the factual basis surrounding the contract. Typically, when both parties made
3 Bidding 25 inaccurate assumptions, the mistake is referred to as a mutual mistake. A mistake is defined as a belief that is not in accord with the facts. A mutual mistake exists when (1) at the time a contract was made, both parties misunderstood a basic fact underlying the contract, and (2) the mistake when identified had a material effect on the parties agreement. A mutual mistake is material when, if the parties had known the real facts, they would not have entered into the contract. If you find that a mutual mistake of a material fact was made regarding the contract, you may find that the contract is voidable (or capable of being set aside). Comment Public policy favors a certain degree of finality in transactions between parties, and, as a general matter, allowing reformation or contract avoidance undermines such a policy. See, e.g., Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 265 (Tex. 1990). The doctrine of mutual mistake represents an exception to the general rule of contract finality. The doctrine is justified by equitable considerations and by relieving parties of a burden to perform excessive investigation of underlying facts before entering a contract. A mutual mistake has been described as occurring when the written instrument fails to set forth the true agreement of the parties. See, e.g., Hart v. Arnold, 884 A.2d 316, 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). The Restatement (Second) of Contracts has enumerated three conditions to the voidability of a contract under the doctrine of mutual mistake: (1) The mistake must relate to a basic assumption on which the contract was made. (2) The mistake must be shown to have a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances. (3) The mistake must not be one as to which the party seeking relief bears the risk.
4 26 Model Jury Instructions: Construction Litigation, 2nd Edition Restatement (Second) of Contracts 152 (1981). The classic illustration of the mutual mistake doctrine is Sherwood v. Walker, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887). The parties had contracted for the sale of a cow thought to be barren. In actuality, the cow was capable of breeding and was pregnant. The court held that a different understanding about the subject matter of the sale was a mutual mistake sufficient to make the contract voidable at the aggrieved party s option. Id. at 923 (holding that a party who has given an apparent consent to a contract of sale may refuse to execute it, or he may avoid it after it has been completed, if the assent was founded, or the contract made, upon the mistake of a material fact, such as the subject-matter of the sale, the price, or some collateral fact materially inducing the agreement; and this can be done when the mistake is mutual ). The court found that the mistake at issue was not the mere quality of the cow but instead went to its very nature because [a] barren cow is substantially a different creature than a breeding one, with a completely different ultimate use. Id. However, as stated by the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, the mutual mistake doctrine does not apply to make a contract voidable if the party seeking relief bore the risk of the mistake. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 152. A party bears the risk of a mistake in three circumstances: (1) when the risk of mistake is allocated by agreement; (2) when, at the time the contract is made, that party is aware of its limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats its limited knowledge as sufficient; or (3) when the court allocates the risk to that party on the basis that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so. Id. 154; McNamara Constr. of Manitoba Ltd. v. United States, 509 F.2d 1166, 1169 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (finding that the risk of labor strife was placed, both explicitly and implicitly by the contract[,] on the contractor); see also Backus v. MacLaury, 106 N.Y.S.2d 401 (App. Div. 1951) (holding that when the parties are aware at the time of contracting that there is doubt about a material element of the agreement but execute the contract anyway, the risk of the doubt is an element of the bargain between the parties).
5 Bidding Unilateral Mistake before Award of Contract In this case, the contractor refused to perform the work for the sum stated in its bid. The contractor claims that its bid contained a clerical error resulting in a lower bid than intended. A clerical error is an error similar to a typo or an obvious math error. A low bidder is entitled to withdraw its bid in the case of an unintentional and substantial clerical error identified before the owner awards the contract. Therefore, a contractor cannot be required to perform work for the owner at the price stated in its bid if it proves the following by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) Its bid contained a substantial clerical error (typo or math error). (2) The price bid was submitted in good faith. (3) The contractor informed the owner of the mistake before it awarded the contract. An error in judgment or a misunderstanding of project requirements does not constitute a unilateral mistake. Comment This principle is a corollary to the general rule that an offer is revocable until actually accepted. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts 36(1)(c). But see Dep t of Transp. v. Am. Ins. Co., 491 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1997) (stating that the common-law rule is not applicable in the context of submission of bids to the Georgia Department of Transportation). The methods of revocation set forth as required in this instruction are distilled from common understandings and customary practice in the industry. See, e.g., Water Works Bd. v. Jones Envtl. Constr. Inc., 533 So. 2d 225 (Ala. 1988). In general, relief is available for unilateral mistakes that are the result of a clerical or arithmetical mistake, not for errors in judgment. See Goldberger Foods Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 295, 311 (1991) (citations omitted). The Restatement (Second) of Contracts illustrates this principle: In response to B s invitation for bids on the construction of a building according to stated specifications, A submits an offer to do the work
6 28 Model Jury Instructions: Construction Litigation, 2nd Edition for $150,000. A believes that this is the total of a column of figures, but he has made an error by inadvertently omitting a $50,000 item, and in fact the total is $200,000. B, having no reason to know of A s mistake, accepts A s bid. If A performs for $150,000, he will sustain a loss of $20,000 instead of making an expected profit of $30,000. If the court determines that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable, it is voidable by A. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 153 (illustration 1). In First Baptist Church of Moultrie v. Barber Contracting Co., 377 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989), a contractor who made a clerical mistake (incorrect addition) in submitting a bid was permitted equitable relief and allowed to rescind his bid, despite previously agreeing not to withdraw the bid for a period of 35 days after the opening of bids, because the owner was promptly notified and, having actual knowledge before forwarding the contract, the owner was not prejudiced thereby. Note: Many states have statutory provisions allowing a bidder to withdraw a bid in public projects if certain time limits and other constraints are met. For example, Colorado s statutory scheme allows for the withdrawal of inadvertently erroneous bids, but the bidder must submit proof of evidentiary value that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that an error was made. Colo. Rev. Stat (6) Unilateral Mistake after Award of Contract In this case, the contractor refused to perform the work for the contract price because it contends it made a mistake that excuses its obligation to perform. Specifically, the contractor alleges [a mistaken belief about facts underlying the contract] motivated it to submit the bid [or accept the contract]. The contractor contends this belief was a mistake because [insert true facts]. The contractor contends if it had known the true facts, it would not have submitted its bid [or entered into the contract]. In general, the law does not allow a contractor to avoid the effects of a contract because the contractor did not understand material issues
7 Bidding 29 underlying the contract. There is an exception, however, if the other party to the contract had reason to know of the contractor s material mistake or if the other party s actions caused the contractor to make a material mistake. If the contractor s bid was sufficiently close to the other bids received or to the owner s own estimates of the cost of the work, you can presume that the owner did not know or have reason to know of a mistake by the contractor. As a result, the contractor is required to perform the contract for the amount bid and accepted by the owner. If you find that the owner had reason to know of the contractor s mistake because there was a large discrepancy between the bid submitted by the contractor and other bids, you may determine the owner should have known there was a mistake in the contractor s bid. Comment This instruction relies on Restatement (Second) of Contracts 153 and 154. Section 153 states the general rule that the mistaken party is only allowed to void the contract based on its own clerical mistake if (1) it does not bear the risk of the mistake, (2) to enforce the contract would not be unconcionable, and (3) the non-mistaken party had reason to know about the mistake. Section 154 explains the circumstances under which a party bears the risk of its mistake. In this regard, a party bears the risk of a mistake in the contract if the risk is allocated to that party as an element of the parties bargain, if the party is aware at the time the contract is made that it has only limited knowledge of the matter about which it subsequently discovers it is mistaken and treats this limited knowledge as sufficient, or if the court deems that the mistake is reasonable in the circumstances in light of that party s position in the bargaining structure. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts 154. In the construction context where a bidding process has occurred, a determination of the owner s knowledge of the contractor s mistake is often dependent on the price differential between the mistaken bid and the next lowest bid. There is no precise mathematical formula to determine what price discrepancy is sufficient to put the owner on notice; rather, it is highly dependent on the circumstances and the usual variation in bidding prices for a project of the same nature. See Handle Constr. Co. v. Norcon Inc.,
8 30 Model Jury Instructions: Construction Litigation, 2nd Edition 264 P.3d 367 (Alaska 2011); Orbas & Assocs. v. Sec y of the Navy, 863 F. Supp (E.D. Cal. 1994); R.J. Sanders Inc. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 288 (1991); A.J. Colella Inc. v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 137 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1958). There also may be circumstances in which the nature of a mistaken bid is apparent on its face. For example, when the bid submitted was for $13,873 and the intended bid was $113,873, the omission of the first digit is a facially apparent deficiency. See Bethel Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Gen. State Auth., 32 Pa. D. & C.2d 533 (1963) Responsive Bid Defined In this case, the plaintiff [disappointed contractor] claims that the defendant [government entity] was required by law to award the proposed construction contract to the plaintiff because the plaintiff was the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. In order for the plaintiff s bid to be responsive, it must comply with all material aspects of the invitation for bids. If the plaintiff s bid only alters from the bidding instructions in an immaterial manner, the plaintiff s bid can still be determined responsive. Comment To be considered responsive, the bid must comply in all material respects with the invitation for bids. Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R ; 1 Construction L. (MB) 2.02[7], at 2-40, 41 (Oct. 11, 2013). In the parlance of government contracting, a responsive bidder is one whose bid conforms to the material elements of an invitation to bid ; a responsible bidder is one who has the necessary resources and experience to perform a given job. See Abadie v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., 916 A.2d 913, 915 (D.C. Ct. App. 2007) Responsible Bid Defined In this case, the plaintiff [disappointed contractor] claims that the defendant [government entity] was required by law to award the proposed construction
9 Bidding 31 contract to the plaintiff because the plaintiff was the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. In order for the plaintiff to be considered responsible, it must possess the minimum resources necessary to perform the project work. You must determine whether the defendant was correct in determining the plaintiff was not responsible. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that it was responsible. Factors that make a bidder not responsible include lack of financial resources, inability to comply with schedules, insufficient qualifications to perform the work, failure to have required licenses, and ineligibility to perform the work under applicable laws and regulations. Comment In the parlance of government contracting, a responsive bidder is one whose bid conforms to the material elements of an invitation to bid ; a responsible bidder is one who has the necessary resources and experience to perform a given job. See id. Within the context of federal contracts, the minimum responsibility requirements include financial resources, ability to comply with proposed schedules, performance record, ethical record, experience and skills, access to equipment and facilities, qualifications, and eligibility under applicable laws and regulations. See Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R Owner s Duty to Inform In this case, the plaintiff [contractor] seeks [[additional compensation] or [to void the contract]] based on its allegation that the defendant [government entity] failed to inform the plaintiff of certain information known to the defendant at the time of bidding but not disclosed to the plaintiff. With respect to construction contracts with government entities, the law creates a presumption that the government entity has superior knowledge of the subject matter of the contract and project requirements. In these situations, the government entity will be required to disclose its superior knowledge. The contractor will be entitled to relief when the contractor can demonstrate the following four elements:
10 32 Model Jury Instructions: Construction Litigation, 2nd Edition (1) The contractor started to perform without knowing about a fact that affects the time or cost of performance. (2) The government entity knew that the contractor did not know about the fact and the contractor had no reason to know. (3) The specifications misled the contractor or did not notify the contractor that it should inquire about the existence of the fact. (4) The government entity did not disclose the fact. Comment According to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: A person s nondisclosure of a fact known to him is equivalent to an assertion that the fact does not exist in the following cases only: (a) where he knows that disclosure of the fact is necessary to prevent some previous assertion from being a misrepresentation or from being fraudulent or material. (b) where he knows that the disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to the basic assumption on which the party is making the contract and if non-disclosure of the fact amounts to a failure to act in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standards of fair dealing. (c) where he knows that disclosure of the fact would correct a mistake of the other party as to the contents or effects of a writing, evidencing or embodying an agreement in whole or in part. (d) where the other person is entitled to know the fact because of the relation of trust and confidence between them. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 161; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts 551(2). Also, with respect to government contracts: [t]he doctrine of superior knowledge is generally applied to situations where (1) a contractor undertakes to perform without vital knowledge of a fact that affects performance costs or duration, (2) the government was aware the contractor had no knowledge
11 Bidding 33 of and had no reason to obtain such information, (3) any contract specification supplied misled the contractor or did not put it on notice to inquire, and (4) the government failed to provide the relevant information. See Giesler v. United States, 232 F.3d 864, 876 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
12
MISTAKE. (1) the other party to the contract knew or should have known of the mistake; or
MISTAKE Mistake of Fact: The parties entered into a contract with different understandings of one or more material facts relating to the contract s performance. Mutual Mistake: A mistake by both contracting
More informationARBITRATOR DISCLOSURE: STANDARDS AND GROWING CHALLENGES
ARBITRATOR DISCLOSURE: STANDARDS AND GROWING CHALLENGES "Do I believe in arbitration? I do. But not in arbitration between the lion and the lamb, in which the lamb is in the morning found inside the lion."
More informationSession: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar. Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION
Session: The False Claims Act Post-Escobar Authors: Robert L. Vogel and Andrew H. Miller THE ESCOBAR CASE: SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INTRODUCTION In United Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel.
More informationContract Law for Paralegals: Chapter 8 Chapter 8
Contract Law for Paralegals: Chapter 8 Chapter 8 Tab Text CHAPTER 8 Contract Enforceability: Protecting a Party Against Overreaching Chapter 8 deals with the second group of contract enforcement problems-ad
More informationCONTRACT LAW. Elements of a Contract
CONTRACT LAW Contracts: Types and Sources in Australia CONTRACT: An agreement concerning promises made between two or more parties with the intention of creating certain legal rights and obligations upon
More informationGenuine Agreement (Genuine Assent)
Chapter 7 Genuine Agreement (Genuine Assent) Business Law Ms. Turner Genuine Agreement (Genuine Assent) Agreement to enter into a contract that is evidenced by words or conduct between parties If there
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
1 1 1 PATRICIA BUTLER and WESLEY BUTLER, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY RETIREMENT, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION
More informationReality of Consent. Reality of Consent. Reality of Consent. Chapter 13
Reality of Consent Chapter 13 Reality of Consent It is crucial to the economy and commerce that the law be counted on to enforce contracts. However, in some cases there are compelling reasons to permit
More informationCase 3:10-cv RBL Document 40 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :0-cv-00-RBL Document 0 Filed 0// Page of HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA SHELLEY DENTON, and all others similarly situated, No.
More informationARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL SEMINARS
ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL SEMINARS CONTRACT FORMATION FRED PHIRI ARCH.Bw May 27, 2017 1 Contents Legal Systems Legal Systems Examples Legal System Applications Civil Law Relationships Law of Obligations
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION
State Automobile Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. There Is Hope Community Church Doc. 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11CV-149-JHM
More informationRoberts & Stevens, P.A., by Ann-Patton Hornthal, Wyatt S. Stevens, Stephen L. Cash, and John D. Noor, for Defendants Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of
Insight Health Corp. v. Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of NC, LLC, 2015 NCBC 50. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BUNCOMBE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 14 CVS 1783 INSIGHT HEALTH CORP.
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied January 19, 1994 COUNSEL
BANK OF SANTA FE V. PETTY, 1993-NMCA-155, 116 N.M. 761, 867 P.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1993) The BANK OF SANTA FE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Ralph PETTY, Defendant, Ben A. Lanford, Sr., Dellie Lanford, Gayle C.
More informationORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION ORDER
Deere & Company v. Rebel Auction Company, Inc. et al Doc. 27 ORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT S AUGytSTASIV. 2016 JUN-3 PM3:ol
More informationXTL- NH, Inc. New Hampshire State Liquor Commission. No CV-119 ORDER
MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT XTL- NH, Inc. v. New Hampshire State Liquor Commission No. 2013-CV-119 ORDER The Plaintiff, XTL-NH, Inc. ( XTL ), a disappointed bidder for a warehousing contract, has brought
More informationS10F1810. TREMBLE v. TREMBLE. S10F1811. TREMBLE v. TREMBLE. Debra Tremble ( Wife ) and Lamar Tremble ( Husband ) were married
In the Supreme Court of Georgia MELTON, Justice. S10F1810. TREMBLE v. TREMBLE. S10F1811. TREMBLE v. TREMBLE. Decided: February 28, 2011 Debra Tremble ( Wife ) and Lamar Tremble ( Husband ) were married
More informationCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ====== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:11-cv-04175-SJO -PLA UNITED Document STATES 11 DISTRICT Filed 08/10/11 COURT Page 1 of Priority 5 Page ID #:103 Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only TITLE: James McFadden et. al. v. National Title
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARTINA v. L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC Doc. 19 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SOPHIA MARTINA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff,
More informationUtah Court Rules on Trial Motions Francis J. Carney
Revised July 10, 2015 NOTE 18 December 2015: The trial and post-trial motions have been amended, effective 1 May 2016. See my blog post for 18 December 2015. This paper will be revised to reflect those
More informationChinese Contract Law: A Brief Introduction. ZHANG Xuezhong. Assistant Professor of Law.
Chinese Contract Law: A Brief Introduction ZHANG Xuezhong Assistant Professor of Law zhangxuezhong@ecupl.edu.cn East China University of Politics and Law Overview 1. In General 2. Principles of Chinese
More informationYou Have to Be Kidding Me!
You Have to Be Kidding Me! What Is the Extent of the Performance Bond Obligee s Obligations to the Surety? David D. Gilliss Pike & Gilliss LLC 600 Washington Ave Ste 303 Towson, MD 21204 Bruce W. Kahn
More informationCase 1:15-cv FPG Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 32
Case 1:15-cv-00887-FPG Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : -v- : 15-CV- : LEE STROCK, KENNETH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :0-cv-000-KJD-LRL Document Filed 0//0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 THE CUPCAKERY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ANDREA BALLUS, et al., Defendants. Case No. :0-CV-00-KJD-LRL ORDER
More informationPrinciples Applicable to Mistakes in Bids on Federal Construction Contracts
Fordham Law Review Volume 25 Issue 1 Article 1 1956 Principles Applicable to Mistakes in Bids on Federal Construction Contracts William L. Morrow Recommended Citation William L. Morrow, Principles Applicable
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MELINDA S. HENRICKS, ) No. 1 CA-UB 10-0359 ) Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT C ) v. ) ) O P I N I O N ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, an Agency,
More informationCase 1:13-cv RM-KMT Document 50 Filed 04/20/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
Case 1:13-cv-02335-RM-KMT Document 50 Filed 04/20/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 Civil Action No. 13 cv 02335 RM-KMT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore
More informationWho Pays for Delay? How Enforceable is a No Damage for Delay Clause?
Who Pays for Delay? How Enforceable is a No Damage for Delay Clause? Eugene Polyak Associate Fort Lauderdale, Florida T: 954.769.5335 E: gpolyak@smithcurrie.com Delays are an all too common occurrence
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION NO. 2:14-CV-60-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Hovey, et al v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION NO. 2:14-CV-60-FL DUCK VILLAGE OUTFITTERS;
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-587C (Filed: November 22, 2013* *Opinion originally filed under seal on November 14, 2013 AQUATERRA CONTRACTING, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:16-cv KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ORDER
Case 1:16-cv-02000-KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. 16-cv-02000-KLM GARY THUROW, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 9, 2008 Session. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY v. NEW HOPE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 9, 2008 Session VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY v. NEW HOPE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 07-1663-IV Richard
More informationThis quiz differed from previous quizzes in focusing more on the specific cases read.
Contracts 2, Week 3 Class 1 SQ = student question Announcements: - Review session Mon. Nov. 4, probably at 430-630 (but may change to 530-730). Will be recorded. - Example 6 on LibGuides - will discuss
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit K-CON, INC., Appellant v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, Appellee 2017-2254 Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 60686, 60687,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 532 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationCase 3:09-cv B Document 17 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:09-cv-01860-B Document 17 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FLOZELL ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-1860-B
More information2:12-cv DCN Date Filed 04/09/13 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 9
2:12-cv-02860-DCN Date Filed 04/09/13 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: MI WINDOWS AND DOORS, ) INC. PRODUCTS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 13, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 13, 2015 Session LINDA HANKE v. LANDON SMELCER CONSTRUCTION Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 13CV791III Hon. Rex H. Ogle, Judge
More informationAccording to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, guilty pleas in 1996 accounted for 91
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office for Victims of Crime NOVEMBER 2002 Victim Input Into Plea Agreements LEGAL SERIES #7 BULLETIN Message From the Director Over the past three
More informationJUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by: JUDGE TAUBMAN Márquez and J. Jones, JJ., concur. Announced: July 12, 2007
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 06CA0426 Eagle County District Court No. 03CV236 Honorable Richard H. Hart, Judge Dave Peterson Electric, Inc., Defendant Appellant, v. Beach Mountain Builders,
More informationWHEN IS A FORECLOSURE SALE FINAL IN NORTH CAROLINA?
WHEN IS A FORECLOSURE SALE FINAL IN NORTH CAROLINA? Can a borrower invoke Rule 60(b) to unwind a completed foreclosure sale after the property changes hands? The surprising answer is maybe, under the right
More informationCGI FEDERAL INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN June 7, 2018 FCi FEDERAL, INC.
PRESENT: All the Justices CGI FEDERAL INC. OPINION BY v. Record No. 170617 JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN June 7, 2018 FCi FEDERAL, INC. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael F. Devine, Judge
More informationCHAPTER 8: GENUINE AGREEMENT
CHAPTER 8: GENUINE AGREEMENT GENUINE AGREEMENT AND RESCISSION A valid offer and valid acceptance generally results in an enforceable contract. If one of the parties used physical threats to acquire the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 3, 2017
05/17/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 3, 2017 WAYNE A. HOWES, ET AL. V. MARK SWANNER, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. MC-CC-CV-DD-11-2599
More informationCase 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:14-cv-60975-WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 WENDY GRAVE and JOSEPH GRAVE, vs. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationCase: 1:18-cv ACL Doc. #: 31 Filed: 01/04/19 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 321
Case: 1:18-cv-00165-ACL Doc. #: 31 Filed: 01/04/19 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 321 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION CARDINAL HEALTH 110, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationNAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
More informationIn the United States Court of Federal Claims
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 05-228C (Filed: May 2, 2005) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORCA NORTHWEST REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- Macro-Z Technology Under Contract No. N44255-04-D-9122 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 56711 James F. Nagle, Esq. Adam K. Lasky, Esq. Oles
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, ORDER VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE CARPARELLI Casebolt and Román, JJ.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0607 Jefferson County District Court No. 04CV3776 Honorable Margie L. Enquist, Judge Plaza del Lago Townhomes Association, Incorporated, Plaintiff Appellee,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAR 9 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TAYLOR & LIEBERMAN, An Accountancy Corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationJUDGMENT AND ORDER AFFIRMED. Division VII Opinion by JUDGE GABRIEL Furman and Richman, JJ., concur. Announced June 23, 2011
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 10CA0521 Grand County District Court No. 07CV147 Honorable Mary C. Hoak, Judge Dennis Justi, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RHO Condominium Association, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationMISREPRESENTATION IN APPLICATION--FALSE ANSWER(S) INSERTED BY AGENT (ESTOPPEL). 1
Page 1 of 5 AGENT (ESTOPPEL). 1 NOTE WELL: This issue assumes that the jury has already concluded that a false representation was made. If more than one alleged misrepresentation is involved, it may be
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 22, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 22, 2010 Session EDDIE WARD, v. TERESA YOKLEY, et al. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County No. 16285 Hon. Frank V. Williams, III.,
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 16, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall, Judge.
IN THE MATTER OF THE TIMBERLINE BUILDERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-304 / 09-0168 Filed June 16, 2010 DONALD D. JAYNE TRUST, DONALD D. JAYNE and LINDA K. JAYNE,
More informationPaul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2014 Paul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4207
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SUZANNE ORR & a. DAVID A. GOODWIN & a. Argued: June 26, 2008 Opinion Issued: July 15, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationA Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
Accounting Policy & Practice Report: News Archive 2016 Latest Developments Analysis & Perspective AUDITOR LIABILITY A Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
More informationQuestion 1: I read that a mentally impaired adult s contracts may be void or voidable. Which is it?
Question 1: I read that a mentally impaired adult s contracts may be void or voidable. Which is it? Answer 1: It depends. If a court of proper jurisdiction has found an adult to be non compos mentis, or
More informationCase 1:09-cv MGC Document 24 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 12. -against- 09 Civ (MGC)
Case 1:09-cv-06649-MGC Document 24 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X ACA GALLERIES, INC., Plaintiff, OPINION AND
More informationJUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division V Opinion by: JUDGE DAILEY Richman and Criswell*, JJ., concur
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA2163 Weld County District Court No. 06CV529 Honorable Daniel S. Maus, Judge Jack Steele and Danette Steele, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Katherine Allen
More informationCase 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01544-LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH W. PRINCE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAC HOME LOANS
More informationUnilateral Mistakes in Construction Bids: Methods of Proof and Theories of Recovery - A Modern Approach
Boston College Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 2 1-1-1964 Unilateral Mistakes in Construction Bids: Methods of Proof and Theories of Recovery - A Modern Approach Wendell F. Grimes Barry J. Walker Follow
More informationGenuineness of Assent
Genuineness of Assent A party who demonstrates that she did not genuinely assent to the terms of a contract may avoid an otherwise valid contract. Genuine assent may be lacking due to mistake, fraudulent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Kareem v. Markel Southwest Underwriters, Inc., et. al. Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AMY KAREEM d/b/a JACKSON FASHION, LLC VERSUS MARKEL SOUTHWEST UNDERWRITERS, INC.
More informationSubmitted September 6, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez and Gooden Brown.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBenjamin Plumbing, Inc. v. Barnes. Supreme Court of Wisconsin Decided June 20, 1991.
HEFFERNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE. Benjamin Plumbing, Inc. v. Barnes Supreme Court of Wisconsin Decided June 20, 1991. * * * In 1987 [William K.] Whitcomb contacted Benjamin Plumbing, Inc., an incorporated family
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO DECEMBER TERM, 2016
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2016-205 DECEMBER TERM, 2016 Thomas Schildkamp APPEALED FROM: Superior
More informationChristopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-25-2012 Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Joseph v. Fresenius Health Partners Care Systems, Inc. Doc. 0 0 KENYA JOSEPH, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, RENAL CARE GROUP, INC., d/b/a FRESENIUS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 5, 2013 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 5, 2013 Session FRANCES WARD V. WILKINSON REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC. D/B/A THE MANHATTEN, ET. AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County
More informationCase 2:18-cv RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2019 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 2:18-cv-14419-RLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2019 Page 1 of 7 GEICO MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, TREASURE COAST MARITIME, INC., doing business as SEA TOW TREASURE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant/Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 18, 2013 v No. 311233 Roscommon Circuit Court JANET ELAINE O NEAL and MORTGAGE LC No.
More information2018COA143. No. 17CA1295, In re Marriage of Durie Civil Procedure Court Facilitated Management of Domestic Relations Cases Disclosures
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON FILED THE TIPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BY TIPTON COUNTY BOARD OF April 7, 1998 EDUCATION, Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA74 Court of Appeals No. 13CA1833 Adams County District Court No. 12CR154 Honorable Jill-Ellyn Strauss, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
More informationDocket No. 24,917 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMCA-102, 140 N.M. 266, 142 P.3d 34 June 21, 2006, Filed
SISNEROS V. CITADEL BROADCASTING CO., 2006-NMCA-102, 140 N.M. 266, 142 P.3d 34 PHILLIP F. SISNEROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY, d/b/a KKOB-FM, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 24,917
More informationETHICAL DUTY OF ATTORNEY TO DISCLOSE ERRORS TO CLIENT
Formal Opinions Opinion 113 ETHICAL DUTY OF ATTORNEY TO 113 DISCLOSE ERRORS TO CLIENT Adopted November 19, 2005. Modified July 18, 2015 solely to reflect January 1, 2008 changes in the Rules of Professional
More informationAdams v. Barr. Opinion. Supreme Court of Vermont February 2, 2018, Filed No
No Shepard s Signal As of: February 7, 2018 8:38 PM Z Adams v. Barr Supreme Court of Vermont February 2, 2018, Filed No. 17-224 Reporter 2018 VT 12 *; 2018 Vt. LEXIS 10 ** Lesley Adams, William Adams and
More informationPERILS OF JOINT REPRESENTATION OF CORPORATIONS AND CORPORATE EMPLOYEES
This article is reprinted with the permission of the author and the American Corporate Counsel Association as it originally appeared in the ACCA Docket, vol. 19, no. 8, at pages 90 95. Copyright 2001,
More informationGood Faith and the Particularity-of-Description Requirement
Missouri Law Review Volume 53 Issue 2 Spring 1988 Article 6 Spring 1988 Good Faith and the Particularity-of-Description Requirement Thomas M. Harrison Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr
More informationNO. COA Filed: 15 January Civil Procedure--Rule 60(b)(1) motion--excusable neglect--notice of hearing
MILTON M. CROOM CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST, W. BRIAN HOWELL, TRUSTEE, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT T. HEDRICK, Defendant and Third- Party Plaintiff, v. P.D. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE CROOM
More informationLegal Framework. Principles of Law. Responsive and Responsible
Legal Framework Contracting in the public sector is based on the principle of competitive bidding. Competitive bidding requires that certain legal principles be followed. This legal framework originated
More informationCase 1:15-cv JHM Document 13 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 483
Case 1:15-cv-00110-JHM Document 13 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 483 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-00110-JHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION SUNSHINE
More informationCase 5:13-cv CLS Document Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 17 Case: Date Filed: 03/17/2017 Page: 1 of 17
Case 5:13-cv-00427-CLS Document 188-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 17 Case: 16-11476 Date Filed: 03/17/2017 Page: 1 of 17 FILED 2017 Apr-20 AM 08:23 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Payne v. Grant County Board of County Commissioners et al Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA SHARI PAYNE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-14-362-M GRANT COUNTY,
More informationMEMORANDUM ISSUE PRESENTED. Is there case law defining the manifestly unreasonable standard used in
MEMORANDUM Date: 12/5/2004 To: From: RE: Professor Kleinberger Maggie M. Tatton Manifestly Unreasonable ISSUE PRESENTED Is there case law defining the manifestly unreasonable standard used in various versions
More informationCase 2:74-cv MJP Document 21 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-mjp Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 SUSAN B. LONG, et al., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant.
More informationFINAL DECISION. November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting
FINAL DECISION November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting Shaquan Thompson Complainant v. NJ Department of Corrections Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2016-300 At the November 14, 2017 public
More informationCase: , 06/11/2015, ID: , DktEntry: 36-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-15441, 06/11/2015, ID: 9570644, DktEntry: 36-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationCONTRACT LAW IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CONTRACT LAW IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC Jennifer Corrin Care Senior Lecturer TC Beirne School of Law University of Queensland Cavendish Publishing Limited London Sydney CONTENTS Preface Table of Cases Table
More informationWhat To Do With Performance Bonds When Projects Default
What To Do With Performance Bonds When Projects Default By Gary Strong January 18, 2018, 3:12 PM EST In today s economic climate, performance bonds are important for construction contracts. While performance
More informationTWELFTH ANNUAL WILLIAMS INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION Index of Key Cases Contents
Contents Cases for Procurement Act Question (No. 1) 1. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). 2. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). 3. Chamber of
More informationCase 1:06-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-00033-RAE Document 36 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRANDON MILLER and CHRISTINE MILLER, v. Plaintiffs, AMERICOR
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2005 Bolus v. Cappy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3835 Follow this and additional
More informationSUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. Complete Title of Case: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert John Prihoda, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
2000 WI 123 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 98-2263-CR Complete Title of Case: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert John Prihoda, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF A DECISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session BRYAN GIBSON v. DAWNE JONES Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-06-0488-2 Arnold B. Goldin, Chancellor
More informationChristopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr.
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-20-2010 Christopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4844
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Stafford v. Geico General Insurance Company et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 PAMELA STAFFORD, vs. Plaintiff, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants. :-cv-00-rcj-wgc
More information