The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court finding that Plaintiffs, two Wyoming citizens, lacked standing to challenge legislation that authorized two construction projects while maintaining a degree of legislative control and that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to their complaint would be futile. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the legislation at issue violated the Wyoming Constitution and that government officials unconstitutionally engaged in a pattern of letting state contracts without competitive bidding or required safeguards. The district court found that Plaintiffs lacked standing and that their proposed amendment to add a third plaintiff who would have alleged economic harm resulting from the contracting practices would be futile. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff lacked standing to bring this lawsuit; and (2) because there was no justiciable controversy, this court declines to address the constitutionality of a statute enacted in 2017 that prohibits naming a legislator in a lawsuit if he or she is sued in an official capacity. View "Allred v. Bebout" on Justia Law
The City of Torrington ("city") filed suit against Strong Construction, Inc. ("Strong") alleging breach of contract claims based on Strong's failure to supply and install water pump motors that conformed to contract specifications. At issue was whether the district court's judgment in favor of the city was supported by the record. The court affirmed and held that the district court's determination was not clearly erroneous where there was ample evidence to support the district court's decision that the Centripro Guidelines were provided to Baker & Associates, the city's engineer, prior to approval of the project submittals; where Strong breached the agreement with the city by failing to provide motors that conformed to the specifications in the parties' agreement; where section 13.07 of the General Conditions did not preclude the city's breach of contract claim and the repair obligation, by its terms, was not limited to one year; and where the court found no basis in common law to extend apportionment of damages to breach of contract claims and the comparative fault statute was not applicable to the breach of contract action.