Legal Opinion
Walt Rankin & Associates, Inc. v. City of Murrieta
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 31, 2000No. E024139PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HOLLENHORST, J.
In an action by a subcontractor for negligent breach of a mandatory duty against the City of Murrieta (City), the trial court entered judgment for the City. The subcontractor appeals, contending the trial court erred in finding the City did not have a mandatory duty to require the surety providing a payment bond under Civil Code sections 3247 and 3248 1 to be an admitted surety insurer or to confirm the sufficiency of the surety prior to accepting the bond.
The resolution of this appeal requires us to determine several issues of first impression, including: (1) must the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Davidson v. City of WestminsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- White v. Ultramar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Morris v. County of MarinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Haggis v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Knapps v. City of OaklandDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
- Guzman v. County of MontereyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. MurilloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Department of Corporations v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Yong Shao Ma v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.