Simpson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 5 district · 21 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The contractors were experienced and competent dock builders. If it had been their intention to only undertake to build the dock for the price stipulated, provided a guaranty was afforded them by the United States that the soil upon which the dock was to bo constructed was to bo of a particular nature, conforming to a plan then existing, a purpose so important, so- vital, would necessarily have found direct and positive expression in the bid and specifications, and would not have been left to be evolved by a forced and latitudinarian construction of the word 'available/ used only in the nature of a recital in the specifications, and not in the contract. The fact that the bidders knew that a test of the soil in the yard had been made, and drew the contract providing that the dock should be located on a site to be designated by the United States without any express stipulation that there was a warranty in their favor that the ground selected should be of a defined character, precludes the conception that the terms of the contract imposed such obligation on the government, in the absence of a full and clear expression to that effect, or at least an unavoidable implication.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. H. W. Golden & Son, Inc. v. Inhabitants of Marblehead · Elkan v. Sebastian Bridge Dist.

2. ““In considering a case where the nature of the soil encountered by a contractor in building a drydock was different from that anticipated, the Supreme Court of the United States held that additional compensation should not be allowed, and stated: ‘The rule by which parties to a written contract are bound by its terms, and which holds that they cannot be heard to vary by parol its express and unambig uous stipulations, or impair the obligations which the contract engenders by reference to the negotiations which preceded the making of the contract, or by urging that the pecuniary result which the contract has produced has not come up to the expectations of one or both of the parties, is too elementary to require anything but statement.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 148 Ind. App. 283 - Allied Structural Steel Co. v. State

3. ““All this is irrelevant matter. The written contract merged all previous negotiations, and is presumed, in law, to express the final understanding of the parties.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Theodore Tiedemann Corp. v. United States