Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lindbrook Construction, Inc. v. Mukilteo School District No. 6

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1969No. 39335Published

1DissentNeill, J.

(dissenting) — I dissent for reasons which are briefly discussed in the majority opinion, but which are not substantiated by the record. There is here involved a basic agency issue of importance to public bodies engaged in public works contracts. ,

The facts giving rise to this litigation are adequately set forth in the majority-opinion. These facts show that the defendant district awarded a public work-contract to plain*545tiff to perform certain site preparation work at a lump sum price of $33,617. This contract was awarded pursuant to an invitation to bid as required by statute. RCW 28.58.135.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bignold v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  2. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. BackstromWashington Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Dehoney v. GjardeWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Schanen-Blair Co. v. Sisters of Charity of the House of ProvidenceWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Valley Construction Co. v. Lake Hills Sewer DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1966

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

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

Powered by the Exa API