Legal Opinion
Valley Construction Co. v. City of Calistoga
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 4, 1946No. Civ. 12946PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDooling, J.
The plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant, city of Calistoga, for the construction bf a dam and spillway. The contract was based upon unit prices for the various items included in the contract. The contract contained the following provision:
“True copies of the Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal of the Contractor, and Plans and Specifications, together with all modifications incorporated in those documents before their execution, are hereunto annexed by reference thereto incorporated herein and made a part hereof ■ as though in this document…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Juchert v. California Water Service Co.California Supreme Court · 1940
- Salt Lake City v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- Roberts v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Wood v. Fort WayneSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Gray v. CottonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Ray v. EuriceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1952
- Harm v. FrasherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Levinson v. LindermanWashington Supreme Court · 1958
- Lincoln Welding Works, Inc. v. RamirezNevada Supreme Court · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.