Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc.

120 F.3d 216 (1997)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
E
From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
120 F.3d 216 (1997)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

The city of Birmingham, Alabama (the city) sought to purchase a new public-safety communications system to be used by its police and fire departments. In 1993 the city issued a request for bids for two different communications systems, the APCO 16 and the APCO 25. Ericsson GE Communications (Ericsson) (plaintiff) placed a bid of approximately $9.75 million for the APCO 16 system. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. (Motorola) (defendant) placed a bid of approximately $11.3 million for the APCO 25 system. After deliberation, the city concluded that the APCO 25 system would be better for the city. The city rejected both bids and entered into a new contract with Motorola for an APCO 25 system. Ericsson filed a diversity lawsuit in federal court, alleging that Motorola and the city violated the Alabama Competitive Bid Law and sought an injunction enjoining the parties from entering into the contract. The federal district court found that Motorola had improperly influenced city officials in violation of the law and voided the contract. Motorola appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kravitch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 791,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Federal Courts

Key Terms