*1 in this manner established relationship 134.170. When is that entitled to treatment illegitimate equal child becomes child. legitimate afforded Court cases cited by

I not read the United States Supreme do how the mean State not majority prescribe to be illegitimate father child is of the relationship putative involved, mother child is established. the status of When Glona, Levy, easily their supra, relationship same rise to the give established. Proof of does not maternity a male In the case of spawns. problems proof paternity legitimate fear of with there is charged parenthood decedent which the is unable against claims tort-feasor spurious others, reason, legislature has pre- defend. For our legislative how When the scribed to be established. paternity met, illegitimate direction is the claims of an child not cognizable. benefits of are paternity a cause

Therefore, possess conclude the child does not I wrongful jury death of James E. Mounter. The action for the new should set aside and the judgment verdict her dece- claims parents trial should be limited dent. OF WIENER, THE CITY Appellant, JR.,

LOUIS v. Respondents. ENTERPRISES, INC., and MAPES RENO No. 6546 February 494 P.2d 277 denied March [Rehearing 1972] Goldwater, Lohse,

Lohse and Reno, Galatz Raggio, & Vegas, of Las for Appellant. Wagoner,

Robert L. Van Attorney, Respond- Reno City ent of Reno. *2 Roberts,

Cooke & Reno, Respondent Mapes prises, Inc.

OPINION Court, Thompson, J.: By The appellant sought unsuccessfully enjoin the City of Inc., and Mapes Enterprises, formalizing a conces- agreement sion for specified concessions at the Reno Interna- tional and has Airport, appealed to this court for relief.

Mapes Enterprises has been the concessionaire at the airport since 1959. In 1962 the base was amended to allow during a Mapes, specified period give written notice of its desire extend the lease for another ten years terms mutually agreed upon. If reached, was not was to request bids from other parties, granting however, Mapes, “right of first refusal and the to meet the terms of such bids or offers making by the same a higher or or better offer.” If Mapes made the same offer, grant higher or or better con- cession contract to Mapes. failed, the lease

Negotiations for extension of agreement, advertised for bids. The City, pub- faithful its lished explicitly existing notice to bidders advised “the cessionaire has the of first refusal and to meet the terms bid determined best mak- by as the by ing the same or a or better offer. Concessionaire has reasonable time limit to meet best offer and the will (noon) to 12:00 permit present concessionaire o’clock right. December 1970 to exercise If the offer is not best concessionaire, met Council present will award contract submitting best proposal, reject all as determined proposals City Council.” Several bids were submitted to the and on the Council determined that the bid of Louis Jr., was the but withheld best action until thereon Decem- existing ber to allow the concessionaire to meet improve upon Wiener’s bid. On December Mapes Enterprises meeting mitted its the bid increasing of Wiener and *3 guarantee annual minimum to the approximately $1,000. On December 21 the City Council unanimously accepted the proposal Mapes Enterprises.

1. Wiener’s complaint injunctive charge relief does not faith, bad fraud Sanitation, or collusion. Cf. Clark Inc. v. Sun Co., Valley Disposal 87 (1971). Nev. 487 P.2d 337 It does not assert that the bidding itself process unlawful, nor suggest that Wiener’s bid was better than the mitted by Douglas Cf. Mapes. Pederson, Co. Board v. 78 Nev. (1962). 369 P.2d 669 There is not slightest the hint that the action of the City granting the concessions to airport worked disadvantage to the the interest. None of these claims is made. thrust the complaint 1962 amendment to

the base was invalid and unenforceable as between thereto, the parties and that such somehow nullified invalidity everything that followed. This contention upon rests the deci- sion of of Reno v. Silver State Flying Serv., 84 Nev. (1968),

438 P.2d 257 where we held that a lease covenant granting lessee the right of first refusal to extend the lease same terms offered to any other person was unenforce- able between the parties and irrelevant to the determination damages an action the lessee for breach of the lease.

130 Here, exists no there to this case. decision inapposite

That of them Neither contracting parties. between dispute be unenforce- lease to base sidered the amendment fully performed able. Each them honored that a formal to execute according prepared terms and are to its Cf. City. supplied by form concession P.2d Tours, 79 Nev. Tanner Motor Harmon v. found that the (1963). court correctly The district case, bearing the merits upon has no Silver State Reno v. litigation. this out to bid. need not concessions put airport 2. The City Nev., Act; Reno, Municipal Municipal Airports NRS ch. agree- private ch. It enter into Code 9.04.010-9.04.020. such terms and conditions “upon for such concessions ments 496.090(3)], deems governing body proper” [NRS advantageous most “such and conditions as are under terms Reno, Nev., Code, This is the supra. the city,” must follow that Accordingly, it declared public policy. thereon “such may impose decided to having once city.” most to the advantageous terms and conditions as are an admittedly gave used advan- Although the bid form here concessionaire, this tage existing Mapes Enterprises, advantage City. handling produced manner of it also Eight were was not chilled. received. knew that had the meet or improve All bidders notwithstanding the best bid submitted their bids upon and above-board. knowledge. The entire procedure produce was to return for The result of procedure disruption airport operation also avoid City and awarding change concessionaire. attendant the Council had in Mapes, apparently concession contract to code direction do so on “terms most municipal mind *4 Sanitation, city.” the This was Clark advantageous to proper. Co., Disposal supra. Inc. v. Sun Valley 3. of this avoids need to decide appeal any Our disposition standing has question validity whether Wiener to the the contractually granted to Mapes first refusal deny pro- he is to the that contract estopped validity whether and vision, to bidders the procedures the notice having reason of submitted his bid with full employed, by knowledge and notice thereof.

Affirmed.

Batjer Gunderson, JJ., and concur. J., dissenting:

Mowbray,

I dissent. 11, 1959,

On the of Reno Mapes September City Inc., prises, signed agreement covering a lease certain conces- sions at Reno The amended parties the later Airport. to the and as agreement, their both of the lease to the length as lessee, to be followed if the to renew procedures Mapes, elected amendment, the the the the period lease. Under terms of the 1, adjusted 1960, lease was from to January to run December 31, The that Mapes 1970. renewal clause if wished to specified lease, given renew the notice of do so had to be intention to 1, writing following to within 180 1970. City days January The renewal that in the event the provided clause further City 1, could not reach an to October Mapes prior 1970, regarding the new rent to paid City for the lease, renewal then the had to advertise City lease for the notified accept Mapes concessions. 1970, 12, elected to January that it renew lease. not, 12, 1970, The could City Mapes January 29, 1970, September reach on the amount any agreement rent to paid term the by Mapes the new lease. On 29, 1970, September grant City Mapes voted an addi- rent, 12, tional period negotiate including October 1970. parties The failed to reach an within the 12, 1970, extended On period. October denied an additional request Mapes negotiation to extend the period. go The City then decided it was necessary bidding. 9, 1970,

On specifications November City approved and bid documents to be made available to bidders. The Bidders, Notice which was published newspa- stated to be pers, sealed would be proposals submitted 10, 1970, read opened and on December publicly that the would make a determination than no later to the best bid submitted. notice further stated would Mapes have to meet the terms of that best by making same or a offer. In the better designated offer, event that did not meet the best could award the lease to the who had mitted the best or could all proposal, reject bids.

On December Notice in the provided Bidders, the determined that the bid Louis Appellant Wiener, Jr., was Thereafter, the best bid. on December submitted to designated that it first offer. also offer contained “alternate bid” that *5 was proposal if first Mapes’s to considered by

rejected.1 pur- met on Council City The Bidders, to award to in Notice set forth suant the terms only were the pro- and Wiener bids Mapes The the contract. bid Mapes’s The decided under discussion. posals by submitted the bid previously a offer than was not better bid. The alternate Mapes’s accepted The then Wiener. bids, while all two give Mapes effect of this procedure single ato bid. bidders limited other were injunc- a preliminary the district court sought then Wiener the lease finalizing prevent tion to motion, judge the district hearing on the After a agreement. Hence, this appeal. denied it. review, generally it is of judicial regard propriety With discretionary with the that the courts not interfere will fraud, abuse corruption, absent city actions of officials McQuillin, Corpora- Law of discretion. 10 E. is (3d 1966). my opinion, principle ed. tions 29.83 § case, is the court this since on the facts of not applicable no where there is in an area actions of reviewing the overriding policy public in the face of room for discretion siderations. volition,

When own decides a its to award bids, seeking contract or lease after municipal public intercede where apparent the courts should hesitate to it is by governmental established bidding process faith, good destroys very albeit in agency, principles the underlying that form public policy competitive basis bidding. The courts should scrutinize the conduct of the bidding any governmental when agency appears it a public that violation of trust involved. on this principal appeal issue is addressed to pro- of first refusal priety allowing competitive situation, bidding where that allows one bidding advantage remaining obtain an over the It unfair bidders. is

1ALTERNATE BID rejected by City, Mapes “In the event the above Enterprises, percentages Wiener, Inc. offers meet Ir. Louis $251,000 guarantee per year. and to increase the minimum annual is, any reason, the bid of Louis Ir. withdrawn “If or dis- qualified, bid and alternate bid are withdrawn and prises, rights regard any reserves its contract other bid the Inc. might determine to be the best bid.” generally purpose public law that recognized principle i.e., interest, to invite protect competi- *6 tion; fraud, favoritism, guard against or extrava- possible that gance; to insure public fully protected. McQuillin, 29.29. § August 17, when

On the terms of the renewal procedure, required on the at the See public rights invite bids concession airport. August NRS 496.090 in the form it was on in which in effect through April 1967. Nor was the to invite on cur- required such contracts under the public 496.090, rent NRS which became provisions effective April Nevertheless, 1967. terms of the lease renewal express clause bidding that such be if the provided would required could not parties reach new within the time speci- fied. Whether statu- competitive bidding enters picture tory requirement bidding by voluntary agreement, used must be in procedure conducted fairly reasonably such a way as insure of the protection public my interest. opinion, allowing to submit same or publication designation better offer bids and all after best bid rendered the competitive bidding process a sham.2 refusal is and useful of con- concept valid law tract when it is applied in the context. But appropriate when such a given single to a competitive bidding governmental awards, contract procedure, void, my being should be opinion, against held the interests bidding group public. When protected public —the is deemed to be all bidders must stand necessary, prospective in the same bidding position. Consequently, procedure this case should be amended and then in a manner performed conforms set principles public forth policy, herein. be given

No award should bidding basis the prior To hold procedure. otherwise would result in the elimination Mapes by judicial fiat. Strict adherence to the dictates policy requires that bids should be called anew bidding manner, in a completed proper all with bidders prospective on an participating equal footing. I would therefore reverse and remand the case to the district court with public project spend time, 2 What contractor aon would money, valid, knowing effort to submit a bona fide another bidder would have the to “outbid” him even after his bid accepted as the “best bid”? to submit directing the City enter order instructions to with the views bidding in accordance lease just expressed. J., concurs.

Zenoff, C. RODELA, Appellant, CAROLE L. A. v. DALE Respondent. RODELA,

No. 6653 494 P.2d March *7 Sutton, Raymond Vegas, for Appellant. E. Las Jemison, Beckley, DeLanoy Vegas, & for Respond- of Las ent.

OPINION Per Curiam: neither the nor the pleadings proposed

In this divorce action judge agreement granting the district of an Dale apprised decree child he had neither nor visit minor whom sired marriage. At adopted, prior but who was issue of Carole’s motion, date judge, a later on his own deleted that district since, view, nunc tunc in his his pro prior approval provision