Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 65 N.W.2d 647.

67 citing documents.

Rochester City Lines Co., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Ro chester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester , , 453, 455 1 See Griswold v. Ramsey Cty ., 242 Minn. 529, 535, (prohibiting “unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious” government action in awarding public contracts).
Anoka County Record, LLC, Anoka County Record v. Anoka County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anoka County Record, LLC, Anoka County Record v. Anoka County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Once a county elects to use a competitive bidding process for a contract, it must “pursue such a method in a manner reasonably designed to accomplish its normal purpose of giving all contractors an equal opportunity to bid and of assuring to the taxpayers the best bargain for the least money.” Griswold v. Ramsey Cnty., 242 Minn. 529, 535
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
To the contrary, “[i]rrespective of what lawful method is adopted or used in the letting of public contracts, it is for the courts to determine whether officials in the exercise of their discretion have applied the method used in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner.” Griswold v. Ramsey Cty., 242 Minn. 529, 535 , -52 (1954).
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester 846 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
er required by statute or elects to follow a competitive-bidding process, that entity is “required, as long as that method [has] not been seasonably abandoned, to pursue such method in a manner reasonably designed to accomplish its normal purpose of giving all contractors an equal opportunity to bid and of assuring to the taxpayers the best bargain for the least money.” Gris-wold v. Ramsey Cnty., 242 Minn. 529, 535
Rochon Corp. v. City of Saint Paul 814 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Rochon Corp. v. City of Saint Paul 814 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Griswold v. Ramsey Cnty., 242 Minn. 529, 536
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 790 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2010
25, 26 (2007); see also Foley Bros., Inc. v. Marshall, 266 Minn. 259, 262 , -90 (1963); Griswold v. Ramsey Cnty., 242 Minn. 529, 533 , Coller v. City of Saint.
McGoff v. AMCO Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
McGoff v. AMCO Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529, 534
W v. Nelson Construction Co. v. City of Lindstrom 565 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
W v. Nelson Construction Co. v. City of Lindstrom 565 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The “fundamental purpose of competitive bidding is to deprive or limit the discretion of contract making officials in the areas which are susceptible to such abuses as fraud, favoritism, improvidence, and extravagance.” Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 536
Lovering-Johnson, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake 558 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Lovering-Johnson, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake 558 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529, 536 , (emphasis added) (footnote omitted); see also Telephone Assocs.
Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Byrd v. Independent School District No. 194 495 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 535
Ryan v. City of Coon Rapids 462 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ryan v. City of Coon Rapids 462 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 535 , -52 (1954).
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 451 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1990
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 451 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1990
This is “to deprive or limit the discretion of contract making officials in the areas which are susceptible to such abuses as fraud, favoritism, improvidence, and extravagance.” Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 536
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 438 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 438 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529 , the Minnesota Supreme Court described the essential nature of the competitive bidding process: A fundamental purpose of competitive bidding is to deprive or limit the discretion of contract making officials in the areas which are susceptible to such abuses as fraud, favoritism, improvidence, an
Schwandt Sanitation of Paynesville v. City of Paynesville 423 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Schwandt Sanitation of Paynesville v. City of Paynesville 423 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held where a governmental unit advertises for competitive bids, it may not later alter its procedure making it non-competitive in nature.
Northwest Petroleum Ass'n v. Minnesota Department of Economic Security 402 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Northwest Petroleum Ass'n v. Minnesota Department of Economic Security 402 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
an equal opportunity to bid and of assuring to the taxpayers the best bargain for the least money.” Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 535 , (footnote omitted).
Villaume Industries, Inc. v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners 386 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Villaume Industries, Inc. v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners 386 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 381 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1986
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission 381 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1986
In Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 534 , we stated: *847 In the absence of a controlling constitutional, statutory, or character provision, it is generally held that public policy does not demand that a municipal corporation about to enter into a contract for the construction of a public improvement must advertise for bids a
J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Braun 376 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Braun 376 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 535 , -52 (1954).
Integrated Development & Manufacturing Co. v. University of Minnesota 363 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Integrated Development & Manufacturing Co. v. University of Minnesota 363 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 535 , -52 (1954).
Telephone Associates, Inc. v. St. Louis County Board 364 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1985
Telephone Associates, Inc. v. St. Louis County Board 364 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1985
Therefore, we, like the court of appeals, must consider this issue in light of the record before us. In Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529 , we described certain essential features of competitive bidding: A fundamental purpose of competitive bidding is to deprive or limit the discretion of contract-making officials in the areas which are susceptible to such abuses as fraud, favoritism, improvidence, and extravagance.
R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis 269 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1978
R. E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis 269 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 1978
* * * The purposes of requirements for competitive bidding are to prevent such abuses by eliminating opportunities for committing them and to promote honesty, economy, and aboveboard dealing in the letting of public contracts.” See, also, Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529
Layne Minnesota Co. v. Town of Stuntz 257 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1977
Layne Minnesota Co. v. Town of Stuntz 257 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1977
We stated in Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529, 536 , that a contract, let without competitive bidding where required by statute, is void as a matter of sound public policy and explained: “ * * * A fundamental purpose of competitive bidding is to deprive or limit the discretion of contract-making officials in the areas which are suscepti
City of New Brighton v. Metropolitan Council 237 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1975
City of New Brighton v. Metropolitan Council 237 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1975
In Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529 , the court held that a board of county commissioners was required to continue using a competitive bidding method for public construction projects once that method had been adopted.
Borgelt v. City of Minneapolis 135 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1965
Borgelt v. City of Minneapolis 135 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1965
Thus, the furnishing of electric current to private consumers would not be enjoined although it was alleged machinery and equipment of the city plant was thereby overtaxed at times when current was needed to light city streets.” See, also, 2 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3 ed.) § 10.33; Village of Edina v. Joseph, 264 Minn. 84 , 119 N. W. (2d) 809 ; Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529 , 65 N. W. (2d) 647 ; Linster v. Luecke, 186 Minn. 386 , .
Otter Tail Power Company v. MacKichan 133 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1965
Otter Tail Power Company v. MacKichan 133 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1965
ds adopted by municipal authorities in the letting of contracts, their obligation is “to determine whether officials in the exercise of their discretion have applied the method used in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner,” and that such officials may be enjoined from illegal acts which are “an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable exercise of power.” In Griswold v. County of Ramsey, 242 Minn. 529, 536 , 65 N. W. (2d) 647, 652 , we pointed out that a fundamental purpose of competiti
Gephart v. Hospital Facility Building Commission 132 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1965