Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hanisco v. Township of Warminster

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 5, 2012PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

Respectfully, I dissent. The two-year extension of the waste services contract between the Township of Warminster (Township) and Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons (Mascaro) did not trigger another round of competitive bidding requirements when the contractor, the low bidder, agreed to further reduce its low-bid price during the extension period. This is because, as the trial court *127concluded, the extension was a term addressed in the original bidding procedure. Further, because the amendment did not affect the scope or type of services…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Hibbs v. ArensbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Morse v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  4. American Totalisator Co., Inc. v. SeligmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Mazet v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hanisco v. Township of WarminsterCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API