Legal Opinion
Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 17, 1995No. A066609PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ANDERSON, P. J.
The crux of this appeal is whether a municipality, consistent with applicable ordinances and without overreaching areas occupied by state law, can bar a contractor from bidding on its public works projects for five years, on a declaration of irresponsibility for knowingly filing a false claim. We conclude it can and reverse the order preliminarily enjoining the City and County of San Francisco (City) and its public utilities commission (PUC) from enforcing the PUC’s order against public works contractor Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. (Stacy).
I. Background
The City is a chartered…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Paul v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Siegert v. GilleySupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Carma Developers (California), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. AcostaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Southern California Underground Contractors, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- MCM Constr., Inc. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Anchorage School DistrictAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.