Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 3 courts 1942–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. McKinnongreen2 sentences1995The importance of maintaining integrity in government and the ease with which policy goals underlying the requirement for open competitive bidding may be surreptitiously undercut, mandate strict compliance with bidding requirements. [Citation.]” These observations mirror those of our Supreme Court in Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 , 140 A.L.R. 570 ]: “The competitive bidding requirement is founded upon a salutary public policy declared by the [L]egislature to protect the taxpayers from fraud, corruption, and carelessness on the part of public officials and the waste a 1995The importance of maintaining integrity in government and the ease with which policy goals underlying the requirement for open competitive bidding may be surreptitiously undercut, mandate strict compliance with bidding requirements. [Citation.]” These observations mirror those of our Supreme Court in Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 , 140 A.L.R. 570 ]: “The competitive bidding requirement is founded upon a salutary public policy declared by the [L]egislature to protect the taxpayers from fraud, corruption, and carelessness on the part of public officials and the waste a | 2 | 4 |
California State Employees' v. State of Calif.green2 sentences1999The competitive bidding requirement of section 19130 , subdivision (a), provides a "safeguard against patronage and favoritism. [Citation.]" (California State Employees' Assn. v. State of California, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at 847 , fn. 4.) Consequently, the authorization of Welfare and Institutions Code section 19404 to contract for services performed by disabled persons cannot be applied in violation of one of the primary purposes of article VII of the Constitution or the requirements of section 19130 deemed necessary by the Legislature to protect the state's civil service system. 1999The competitive bidding requirement of section 19130, subdivision (a), provides a “safeguard against patronage and favoritism. [Citation.]” (California State Employees’ Assn. v. State of California, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at 847, fn. 4 .) Consequently, the authorization of Welfare and Institutions Code section 19404 to contract for services performed by disabled persons cannot be applied in violation of one of the primary purposes of article VII of the Constitution or the requirements of section 19130 deemed necessary by the Legislature to protect the state’s civil service system. | 1 | 2 |
George Harms Construction Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authoritygreen2 sentences1995(See Building and Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders (1993) 507 U.S. 218 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 565 , 113 S.Ct. 1190 ] (Boston Harbor).) State law issues arising from a competitive bidding requirement, which were not before the federal Supreme *472 Court in Boston Harbor, were subsequently addressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in George Harms Const. v. Turnpike Auth. (1994) 137 N.J. 8, 38-45 [ 644 A.2d 76, 92-95 ] {Harms). 1995(See Building and Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders (1993) 507 U.S. 218 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 565 , 113 S.Ct. 1190 ] (Boston Harbor).) State law issues arising from a competitive bidding requirement, which were not before the federal Supreme *472 Court in Boston Harbor, were subsequently addressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in George Harms Const. v. Turnpike Auth. (1994) 137 N.J. 8, 38-45 [ 644 A.2d 76, 92-95 ] {Harms). | 1 | 1 |
Boydston v. Napa Sanitation Districtgreen2 sentences1995The importance of maintaining integrity in government and the ease with which policy goals underlying the requirement for open competitive bidding may be surreptitiously undercut, mandate strict compliance with bidding requirements. [Citation.]” These observations mirror those of our Supreme Court in Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 , 140 A.L.R. 570 ]: “The competitive bidding requirement is founded upon a salutary public policy declared by the [L]egislature to protect the taxpayers from fraud, corruption, and carelessness on the part of public officials and the waste a 1995The importance of maintaining integrity in government and the ease with which policy goals underlying the requirement for open competitive bidding may be surreptitiously undercut, mandate strict compliance with bidding requirements. [Citation.]” These observations mirror those of our Supreme Court in Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 , 140 A.L.R. 570 ]: “The competitive bidding requirement is founded upon a salutary public policy declared by the [L]egislature to protect the taxpayers from fraud, corruption, and carelessness on the part of public officials and the waste a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Welchgreen2 sentences1988Contract Code, § 102.) Cubic's position overlooks two important considerations: 1) SAFEs may fail to issue revenue bonds thereby never giving rise to competitive bidding requirements in any instance, and 2) imposing competitive bidding requirements in all instances would require this court to find the Legislature intended to impose a competitive bidding requirement by implication. [4] (3) A court should not presume the Legislature intended to legislate by implication. ( People v. Welch (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 997, 1002 [ 98 Cal. Rptr. 113 ].) Although in years past it may have been necessary for 1988Contract Code, § 102.) Cubic's position overlooks two important considerations: 1) SAFEs may fail to issue revenue bonds thereby never giving rise to competitive bidding requirements in any instance, and 2) imposing competitive bidding requirements in all instances would require this court to find the Legislature intended to impose a competitive bidding requirement by implication. [4] (3) A court should not presume the Legislature intended to legislate by implication. ( People v. Welch (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 997, 1002 [ 98 Cal. Rptr. 113 ].) Although in years past it may have been necessary for | 1 | 1 |
Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. Prattgreen2 sentences1969Failure of the parties to urge such illegality does not relieve an appellate court of its duty to protect the municipality (Stockton Morris etc. Co. v. California etc. Corp., 112 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 247 P.2d 90 ]; see Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. Pratt, 17 Cal.2d 85, 92 [ 109 P.2d 650 ]). 1969Failure of the parties to urge such illegality does not relieve an appellate court of its duty to protect the municipality (Stockton Morris etc. Co. v. California etc. Corp., 112 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 247 P.2d 90 ]; see Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. Pratt, 17 Cal.2d 85, 92 [ 109 P.2d 650 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Stockton Morris Plan Co. v. California Tractor & Equipment Corp.green2 sentences1969Failure of the parties to urge such illegality does not relieve an appellate court of its duty to protect the municipality (Stockton Morris etc. Co. v. California etc. Corp., 112 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 247 P.2d 90 ]; see Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. Pratt, 17 Cal.2d 85, 92 [ 109 P.2d 650 ]). 1969Failure of the parties to urge such illegality does not relieve an appellate court of its duty to protect the municipality (Stockton Morris etc. Co. v. California etc. Corp., 112 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 247 P.2d 90 ]; see Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. Pratt, 17 Cal.2d 85, 92 [ 109 P.2d 650 ]). | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beachgreen2 sentences1942This court stated in Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348, 353 [ 291 Pac. 839 , 71 A. L. R. 161], in considering a competitive bidding requirement : “Certain general principles have become well established with respect to municipal contracts, and a brief statement of these principles will serve to narrow the field of our inquiry here. 1942This court stated in Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348, 353 [ 291 Pac. 839 , 71 A. L. R. 161], in considering a competitive bidding requirement : “Certain general principles have become well established with respect to municipal contracts, and a brief statement of these principles will serve to narrow the field of our inquiry here. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Transportation v. Chavez
green
2 sentences1999(Department of Transportation v. Chavez, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at 417 .) The other two exceptions to the constitutional prohibition can be summarily dismissed in the circumstances presented. 1999(Department of Transportation v. Chavez, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at 417 .) 8 99-310 The other two exceptions to the constitutional prohibition can be summarily dismissed in the circumstances presented. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2021FESB relies on Domar, supra, 9 Cal.4th 161 , in which our Supreme Court explained that competitive bidding requirements fulfill the “‘purpose of inviting competition, to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, and to secure the best work or supplies at the lowest price practicable, and they are enacted for the benefit of property holders and taxpayers, and not for the benefit or enrichment of bidders, and should be so construed and administered as to accomplish such purpose fairly and reasonably with sole reference to the public interest.’” (Id. at p. 173.) 2021FESB relies on Domar, supra, 9 Cal.4th 161 , in which our Supreme Court explained that competitive bidding requirements fulfill the “‘purpose of inviting competition, to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, and to secure the best work or supplies at the lowest price practicable, and they are enacted for the benefit of property holders and taxpayers, and not for the benefit or enrichment of bidders, and should be so construed and administered as to accomplish such purpose fairly and reasonably with sole reference to the public interest.’” (Id. at p. 173.) | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995(See Building and Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders (1993) 507 U.S. 218 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 565 , 113 S.Ct. 1190 ] (Boston Harbor).) State law issues arising from a competitive bidding requirement, which were not before the federal Supreme *472 Court in Boston Harbor, were subsequently addressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in George Harms Const. v. Turnpike Auth. (1994) 137 N.J. 8, 38-45 [ 644 A.2d 76, 92-95 ] {Harms). 1995(See Building and Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders (1993) 507 U.S. 218 [ 122 L.Ed.2d 565 , 113 S.Ct. 1190 ] (Boston Harbor).) State law issues arising from a competitive bidding requirement, which were not before the federal Supreme *472 Court in Boston Harbor, were subsequently addressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in George Harms Const. v. Turnpike Auth. (1994) 137 N.J. 8, 38-45 [ 644 A.2d 76, 92-95 ] {Harms). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.