1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 233 N.J.
  5. 233 N.J. Super. 116 (1989)
 

CARBRO CONST. v. UTILITIES AUTHORITY

233 N.J. Super. 116 (1989)

558 A.2d 54

CARBRO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND UTILITY & TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY AND LODIGIANI U.S.A., LTD., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. CRIS-TEC ASSOCIATES, INC., ERNEST RENDA CONTRACTING CO., INC., AND GARY FEATH, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, AND UTILITY & TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, INC., A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY AND LODIGIANI U.S.A., LTD., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided May 12, 1989.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard R. Bonamo argued the cause for appellant Middlesex County Utilities Authority (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, attorneys).

Charles Molineaux argued the cause for appellant Lodigiani U.S.A., Ltd. (Zorc, Rissetto, Weaver & Rosen and Peckar & Abramson, attorneys, Charles Molineaux and Richard L. Abramson on the brief).

Andrew K. Ruotolo, Jr. argued the cause for respondent Carbro Construction Company (Weiseman, Mella & Ruotolo, attorneys).

Steven E. Brawer argued the cause for intervenor-respondent Utility & Transportation Contractors Association (Cole, Geaney, Yamner & Byrne, attorneys).

Michael O. Renda argued the cause for respondent Ernest Renda Contracting Co., Inc., Cris-Tec Associates, Inc. and Gary Feath (Waldman, Renda & McKinney, attorneys).

Before Judges GAULKIN, R.S. COHEN and A.M. STEIN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by R.S. COHEN, J.A.D.,

Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) advertised for bids to build a one-mile outfall line to carry treated effluent from its sewage treatment plant into Raritan Bay. Prospective bidders complained of defects in the contract documents and asked MCUA to correct them or not proceed to receive bids. MCUA went ahead. Plaintiff contractors declined to submit bids. Joined by a taxpayer and a contractors...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases