Davis v. Jerry
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Dissent
John A. Fogleman, Justice.
I dissent because I feel there has been a substantial compliance with the county purchasing procedure act. See Act 52 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1965. An analysis of this act leads me to the inescapable conclusion that its purpose was to assure competitive bidding in county purchases where the purchase price is $1,000 or more, except for certain commodities which do not include voting machines.
Section 1 makes it unlawful for a county official to make purchases with county funds in excess of $1,-000 unless the method of purchasing set out in the act is…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Chippewa Bridge Co. v. City of DurandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Harlem Gas Co. v. . Mayor, C., of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Dement v. RokkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Fones Hardware Co. v. ErbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.