Legal Opinion

Inyokern Sanitation District v. Haddock-Engineers, Ltd.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 13, 1950No. L. A. 21009PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A hearing was granted in this case because there was then pending before us the case of Petrovich v. City of Arcadia, ante, p. 78 [222 P.2d 231], which also related to the question of forfeiture in a public improvement contract. The conclusion herein is not in any way inconsistent with the result in that case. There the court was concerned solely with the interpretation to be given the language of the contract between the parties. No statute was involved, and it was determined that no words of forfeiture were employed by the city in declaring the liability upon the bidder’s breach.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Miller v. McKinnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Town of Mill Valley v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. Petrovich v. City of ArcadiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bilardi Construction, Inc. v. SpencerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Devine v. Freedom Newspapers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API