Alaska Bussell Electric Co. v. Vern Hickel Construction Co.
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MOORE, Justice.
Alaska Bussell Electric Company (Bus-sell) appeals the judgment of the superior court entered pursuant to the special jury verdict. The jury held that Bussell was liable to Vern Hickel Construction (Hickel) on a theory of promissory estoppel for refusing to perform according to the terms of Bussell’s bid. Hickel cross-appeals the trial court’s judgment awarding Hickel less than the requested measure of damages. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Bussell is an electrical subcontractor. Hickel is a general contractor. Both operate in the Anchorage area. Their dispute concerns…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Healey v. Catalyst Recovery of Pennsylvania, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- Emil Perzinski v. Chevron Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Pavel Enterprises, Inc. v. AS Johnson Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Glamann v. KirkAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- Brady v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
- Murray v. FeightAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
- Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.