B.A. v. State, Department of Children & Families

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• upholding procurement requirements where they held “a rational relationship to agency needs” and were not “unduly restrictive”
• “[I]n some cases, serious delay in raising a claim may impact the equities in determining whether an injunction should issue or lead to the imposition of laches.”
• claim that an offeror had to possess or control a compliant warehouse at time of bid was unsupported by language of solicitation
• “[T]he determination of an agency’s minimum needs is a matter within the broad discretion of agency officials, and not for this court to second guess.” (internal citations omitted)
• “Of course, in some eases, serious delay in raising a claim may impact the equities in determining whether an injunction should issue or lead to the imposition of laches.”
• finding no prejudice on analogous facts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).