Legal Opinion

County of Greenlee v. Webster

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1923No. Civil No. 2040PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

The plaintiffs, as the lowest responsible bidders, were on March 17, 1919, given by the defendant county the contract to construct and improve some thirty-three miles of the Clifton-Springerville road, beginning with section 1 and extending to station 1835-31, section 7. The plaintiffs began the work of actual construction immediately thereafter. The *185county, acting through its board of supervisors and engineer, in the progress of the work, made many alterations in the plans and specifications, resulting in the alteration of the quantity, location and extent of the work as originally estimated…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. McMaster v. . the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  2. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MooreIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  4. County of Cook v. HarmsIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Kieburtz v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1915

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Snowball v. Maney Bros. & Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1928
  2. County of Greenlee v. WebsterArizona Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand OaksCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand OaksCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. STONEHEDGE INTEREST LLC & PATRICK MARTIN v. STREDNEYUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API