Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department v. Adams

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided September 18, 1989No. 89-118Published

1DissentJohn I. Purtle, Justice

There are two things on which I agree with the majority: first, the integrity of the bidding process of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) must be upheld; second, the appellee’s bid was the lowest bid opened by the AHTD. It is my opinion that Rust was the lowest responsible bidder and that the Commission should have awarded the bid to it. The technical error, which was to the disadvantage of the bidder, is so small as to fall within the de minimis rule. See Lawrence County v. Townsend, 202 Ark. 887, 154 S.W.2d 4 (1941). Moreover, I believe the action by the Commission…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chris Berg, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation & Public FacilitiesAlaska Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Chick's Construction Co. v. Wachusett Regional High School District School CommitteeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
  3. Lawrence County v. TownsendSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API