Legal Opinion
Hoffman v. City of Muscatine
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided September 26, 1930No. 39941PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, J.
The petition predicates a charge of fraud mainly upon the fact that the bidding contractor, Warren Brothers Company, was the patentee of the paving mixture, which was to be used in the performance of the contract. Preliminary to a more detailed statement, the salient facts of the case may be stated very briefly.
The City Council of Muscatine proposed to resurface certain defective pavement and established two districts for that purpose. By regular procedure, including notice to bidders, it announced a letting on June 28, 1927. Pursuant to statute the council selected four kinds of material…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Fones Hardware Co. v. ErbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Mayor of Baltimore v. FlackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
- Diamond v. City of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Matter of Petition of Anthony DugroNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Keokuk Waterworks Co. v. KeokukSupreme Court of Iowa · 1938
- City of Des Moines v. Master Builders of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1993
- Schwartz Nagle, Etc. v. Bd. of Chosen FreeholdersNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Brutsche v. Coon RapidsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Weiss v. Incorporated Town of WoodbineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.