General Pub. Co., Inc. v. Erxleben, 84-79
| Decision Date | 02 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-79,84-79 |
| Citation | 283 Ark. 136,671 S.W.2d 182 |
| Parties | GENERAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Edward J. ERXLEBEN, Director of Purchasing for the State of Arkansas, and Julia Hughes Jones, Auditor for the State of Arkansas, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Patten & Brown by Charles A. Brown, Little Rock, for appellant.
Thomas S. Gay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellees.
The appellee, Edward Erxleben, as Director of Purchasing for the State of Arkansas, invited bids on April 7, 1981, for the printing of Volumes 269, 270, and 271 of the Arkansas Reports. The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, United Services of Arkansas Inc. on April 24, 1981. At the time its bid was accepted, United Services had forfeited its charter for failure to pay its franchise tax. The appellee did not have actual knowledge of their defunct status at the time the contract was awarded. The appellant, General Publishing Co., Inc., submitted the next lowest bid and protested the director's action in awarding the contract. The protest was denied and the State honored the contract, even after being notified of United Services' failure to pay its franchise tax.
United Services paid the taxes and was reinstated after the contract was awarded but before the work was completed. The contract was fully performed and United Services was paid by the appellee, Julia Hughes Jones, the state auditor. The appellant filed a lawsuit challenging the appellees' actions. The trial court dismissed the action on a motion for summary judgment filed by the appellees. It is from that action that this appeal is brought. This case comes to us under Sup.Ct.R. 29(1)(a) & (c) because it involves interpreting the Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas statutes.
The trial judge granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no justiciable controversy existed, and the appellant was seeking an impermissible advisory opinion on a moot question.
Volumes 269, 270 and 271 of the Arkansas Reports have already been printed and United Services has been paid for its work. Therefore, the question of determining who is the proper party to be awarded the contract is moot. We do not ordinarily decide moot issues, Mabry v. Kettering, 92 Ark. 81, 122 S.W. 115 (1909), and will not here. We agree with the trial court and affirm.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald's Corp. v. Hawkins
...Johnson v. State, 314 Ark. 471, 863 S.W.2d 305 (1993); Gladden v. Bucy, 299 Ark. 523, 772 S.W.2d 612 (1989); General Publishing Co. v. Erxleben, 283 Ark. 136, 671 S.W.2d 182 (1984); Beard v. Beard, 207 Ark. 863, 183 S.W.2d 44 (1944). We, accordingly, refrain from addressing the issue of whe......
-
Logan v. State, CR
...the question concerning the revocation of his appeal bond is moot. We do not ordinarily decide moot issues, General Publishing Co. v. Erxleben, 283 Ark. 136, 671 S.W.2d 182 (1984) (citing Mabry v. Kettering, 92 Ark. 81, 122 S.W. 115 (1909)), and will not here. "It is the duty of this [C]our......
-
Twin City Bank v. Isaacs
... ... 675. In general, the type of mental anguish suffered under § ... 433, 565 S.W.2d 138 (1978); Dodson Creek Inc. v. Walton, 2 Ark.App. 128, 620 S.W.2d 947 ... ...
-
Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep't v. O.J.'s Serv. Two, Inc.
...legal controversy. Id. In other words, a moot case presents no justiciable issue for determination by the court. Gen. Pub. Co. v. Erxleben, 283 Ark. 136, 671 S.W.2d 182 (1984). We have recognized that when a state contract has been fully performed, a challenge to the grant of the contract t......