126 Pa. Commw. 1 - Doverspike v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on H. J. Lewis Oyster Co. v. United States · American Totalisator Co., Inc. v. Seligman · Hammermill Paper Co. v. Erie · 97 Pa. Commw. 530 - Bryson v. SOLOMON · Pardee v. Schuylkill County
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) All contracts for services and personal property where the amount thereof exceeds the sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000), shall be written and shall, except as otherwise hereinafter specified, be made by advertising for bids. (h) The contracts or purchases made by the commissioners involving an expenditure of over four thousand dollars ($4,000) which shall not require advertising or bidding, as hereinbefore provided, are as follows: (5) Those involving services of members of the medical or legal profession, registered architects, engineers, certified public accountants or other personal services involving professional expert advice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We, of course, recognize the public policy considerations which underlie the general requirement that public contracts be competitively bid, including the prevention of fraud and favoritism and protection of the public fisc. See American Totalisator Co. v. Seligman, 34 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 391, 384 A.2d 242 (1977), affd, 489 Pa. 568 , 414 A.2d 1037 (1980). Statutory requirements for public bid-dings should be liberally construed to effect these purposes. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(c). As a corollary, we believe that exceptions to competitive bidding requirements should be narrowly construed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.