Independent Enterprises Inc. Thomas Lozecki v. Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority City of Pittsburgh

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)(2) “permits inconsistency in both legal and factual allegations”
• explaining that a low bidder’s entitlement to a state contract is “not the sort of ‘fundamental’ interest entitled to the protection of substantive due process”
• noting that the Rule “has been interpreted to mean that a court ‘may not construe [a plaintiffs] first claim as an admission against another alternative or inconsistent claim.’ ”
• stating that “a substantive due process claim grounded in an arbitrary exercise of governmental authority may be maintained only where the plaintiff has been deprived of a ‘particular quality of property interest’” (quotation omitted)
• noting that some cases involving “zoning decisions, building permits, or other governmental permission required for some intended use of land owned by the plaintiffs . . . implicat[ed] the ‘fundamental’ property interest in the ownership of land”
• distinguishing between a disappointed bidder's Article III standing and a low bidder's right to relief under Pennsylvania's competitive bidding statutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).