Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. San Francisco,
42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 805, 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 658 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 1995)

A municipal public utilities commission’s order barring a contractor from bidding on the municipality’s public works projects for five years was upheld by the California appellate court where the commission found that the contractor had knowingly submitted a greatly inflated delay and disruption claim.

AyrCom Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.,
1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 981 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 1995)

Contract which contained two unit prices for laying cable in rock was ambiguous and court admitted extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of the ambiguous provisions. Evidence regarding the contractor’s profit or loss was not admissible because its relevance was outweighed by its substantial prejudice regarding the meaning of an ambiguous contract provision. A state’s requirement of a “certificate of authority” to conduct business in the state as a prerequisite to maintaining an action was not a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, but rather was related to a party’s capacity to sue and, therefore, was waived if not raised timely.

Associated Builders & Contractors, Golden Gate Chapter, Inc. v. Contra Costa Water District,
43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 600, 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 734 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 1995)

California county water district performing construction financed under the provisions of state bond law was not subject to state statutes requiring competitive bidding and, therefore, its solicitation for bids which included a “project labor agreement” requiring the work to be performed with union labor was not improper.