Porsh Builders, Inc. v. City of Winston-Salem
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
COPELAND, Justice.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether defendants were required under the language of G.S. 160A-514 to accept plaintiff’s bid as the “highest responsible bid,” if defendants decided to accept either bid submitted. For the reasons stated below, we find the Court of Appeals’ majority opinion correct in its interpretation of the statute as allowing defendants to either reject all bids or accept plaintiff’s “highest responsible bid,” and hold that summary judgment entered in favor of defendants was properly reversed.
G.S. 160A-514(c) and (d) govern the sale to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Koontz v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- State ex rel. Commissioner of Insurance v. North Carolina Automobile Rate Administrative OfficeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Jolly v. WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Campbell v. First Baptist Church of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Electric Supply Co. of Durham, Inc. v. Swain Electrical Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Lanvale Properties, LLC v. County of CabarrusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012
- State v. BatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
- Dunn v. Pacific Employers InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
- Poole v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.