Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Accela, Inc. v. Sarasota County
Citations: 901 So. 2d 237; 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5218; 2005 WL 856117Docket: No. 2D04-4217
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 15, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court
Accela, Inc. and CRW Systems, Inc., the plaintiffs, appealed a final summary judgment in favor of Sarasota County and CSDC Systems, Inc., with the trial court determining that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The plaintiffs contended that the County improperly awarded contracts to CSDC without competitive bidding, as required by the Sarasota County Procurement Code, although they acknowledged an exception to this requirement exists. They asserted they were prepared to submit bids had they been invited. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, concluding they did not have a sufficient stake in the controversy. However, the appellate court found this ruling erroneous, citing that standing is based on whether a party has a legally cognizable interest affected by the litigation's outcome. The court referenced previous rulings that established potential competitors have standing to challenge competitive bidding requirements. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the trial court had no authority to address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims after finding a lack of standing. Judges Fulmer and Silberman concurred in this decision.