Lindbrook Construction, Inc. v. Mukilteo School District No. 6
Washington Supreme Court
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
- Bignold v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1965
- American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. BackstromWashington Supreme Court · 1955
- Dehoney v. GjardeWashington Supreme Court · 1925
- Schanen-Blair Co. v. Sisters of Charity of the House of ProvidenceWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Valley Construction Co. v. Lake Hills Sewer DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.