1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 20 F.3d
  5. 20 F.3d 1311 (1994)
 

SMITH SETZER & SONS, INCORPORATED v. S.C. PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL

No. 93-1111.

20 F.3d 1311 (1994)

SMITH SETZER & SONS, INCORPORATED; Neil Setzer, individually and as President and shareholder of Smith Setzer & Sons, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL; Hugh Leatherman; Grady L. Patterson, Jr.; Glenn F. McConnell; Luther L. Taylor, Jr.; Jules J. Hesse; Roy E. Moss; Kiffen R. Nanney; Gus J. Roberts; Carol Baughman, as officers and members of the South Carolina Procurement Review Panel; Carroll A. Campbell, Jr., Governor; Grady L. Patterson, Jr.; Earle E. Morris, Jr.; James W. Waddell, Jr.; Robert N. McLellan; Jesse A. Coles, Jr., as officers and members of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board, division of General Services; South Carolina Budget and Control Board, a division of General Services; James J. Forth, Chief Procurement Officer for the South Carolina Budget and Control Board, a division of General Services, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided April 11, 1994.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ARGUED: David Clifford Eckstrom, Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, Columbia, SC, for appellants. Arthur Camden Lewis, Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, Columbia, SC, for appellees.

ON BRIEF: Martin Pannell, Martin & Monroe Pannell, P.A., Conover, NC, for appellants. Cameron B. Littlejohn, Jr., Pete Kulmala, Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, Columbia, SC, Suann White, South Carolina Procurement Review Panel, Columbia, SC, for appellee Members of Procurement Review Board; James W. Rion, Division of General Services, Columbia, SC, for appellee Members of Budget and Control Board.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and SMITH, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge ERVIN wrote the opinion, in which Judge PHILLIPS and Judge SMITH joined.

OPINION

ERVIN, Chief Judge:

This case challenges the constitutionality of South Carolina's legislatively-enacted program under which certain South Carolina products and South Carolina vendors are given slight preferences in the bidding process for certain types of state procurement. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment...

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