Legal Opinion

Rollings Construction, Inc. v. Tulsa Metropolitan Water Authority

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 13, 1987No. 65312PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SUMMERS, Justice.

The low bidder for a public construction contract sought injunction and mandamus when the contracting authority accepted the second lowest bid. The trial court held that the issuance of a “Contractor’s Pre-qualification Certificate” pursuant to city ordinance does not per se deprive the contracting authority of its discretion in awarding the bid to the “lowest responsible” bidder under the Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, 61 O.S.1981 § 101 et seq., and refused the relief requested.

We affirm.

There are no controverted facts. The City of Tulsa has adopted ordinances…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth ex rel. Snyder v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
  2. Wilson v. New Castle CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Hannan v. Bd. of Educ. of City of LawtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  4. Packard v. HayesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1902
  5. Williams v. City of TopekaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Air Research Testing Authority, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of NashvilleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1992
  2. N.E.R.I. Corp. v. New Jersey Highway AuthoritySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
  3. Glover v. MabreyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
  4. Crest Const. v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1992
  5. Hoar v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998

8 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