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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glasgow, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2023See id. at 1034 ; see also Glasgow, 851 A.2d at 1017 (“Where specifications set forth in a bidding document are mandatory, they must be strictly followed for the bid to be valid, and a violation of those mandatory bidding instructions constitutes a legally disqualifying error for which a public agent may reject a bid.”) (emphasis added). 8 In this case, the IFB provided that to be eligible for selection, a bid must be both timely received and properly signed by the bidder. 2020“Where specifications set forth in a bidding document are mandatory, they must be strictly followed for the bid to be valid, and a violation of those mandatory bidding instructions constitutes a legally disqualifying error for which a public agent may reject a bid.” Ctr. for Climate Strategies, Inc., 194 A.3d at 744 (quoting Glasgow, Inc., 851 A.2d at 1017 (citation omitted)). | 3 | 5 |
Cardiac Science, Inc. v. Department of General Servicesgreen1 sentence2023See id. at 1034 ; see also Glasgow, 851 A.2d at 1017 (“Where specifications set forth in a bidding document are mandatory, they must be strictly followed for the bid to be valid, and a violation of those mandatory bidding instructions constitutes a legally disqualifying error for which a public agent may reject a bid.”) (emphasis added). 8 In this case, the IFB provided that to be eligible for selection, a bid must be both timely received and properly signed by the bidder. | 1 | 1 |
Kimmel v. Lower Paxton Townshipgreen2 sentences2004Kimmel v. Lower Paxton Township, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 633 A.2d 1271, 1275 (1993). 2004Kimmel v. Lower Paxton Township, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 633 A.2d 1271, 1275 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ctr. for Climate Strategies, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
green
2 sentences2020“Where specifications set forth in a bidding document are mandatory, they must be strictly followed for the bid to be valid, and a violation of those mandatory bidding instructions constitutes a legally disqualifying error for which a public agent may reject a bid.” Ctr. for Climate Strategies, Inc., 194 A.3d at 744 (quoting Glasgow, Inc., 851 A.2d at 1017 (citation omitted)). 2020“Bids that fail to conform to all mandatory requirements and criteria contained in an invitation for bids are non-responsive to the invitation.” Ctr. for Climate Strategies, Inc., 194 A.3d at 745 . 16 Here, the IFB’s 20% self-performance and 10% DBE participation requirements were mandatory. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.