Cedroni Associates, Inc. v. Tomblinson, Harburn Associates, Architects & Planners, Inc.
Michigan Court of Appeals
1DissentK. F. Kelly, J.
I respectfully dissent. The trial court correctly determined that plaintiff lacked a valid business expectancy in a potential governmental contract. In my view, plaintiff merely had a legitimate expectancy that the bidding process would be openly and fairly conducted and, thus, it had to establish fraud, injustice, or violation of trust in order to avoid summary disposition. Moreover, even assuming that the majority’s framework of analysis is correct, plaintiff nonetheless failed to show that defendant did anything improper or that its conduct was anything other than the exercise of…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- West v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2003
- Walsh v. TaylorMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
- Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2009
- Advocacy Organization for Patients & Providers v. Auto Club InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.