E.R. Mitchell Construction Co. v. Danzig’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.3d 1369 · 1999
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United States (1999), Melka Marine, Inc. v. United States (1999)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kansas v. Missouri · Erickson Air Crane Company of Washington Inc v. United States · United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc. · Blount Bros. Construction Co. v. United States · Severin v. United States
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“work could not proceed until the faults [causing the suspension] were cured”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when the government shoulders its burden of proof under the Severin doctrine, it enjoys immunity, as a matter of law, from the pass-through suit for want of privity in the circumstances. But when the government either fails to raise its Severin /sovereign immunity defense at trial, or raises it and fails to prove it, then the claims of the subcontractor are treated as if they are the claims of the prime contractor, and any further worry about the absence of subcontractor privity with the government is extinguished.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“shifted” several decades ago, and “[t]hus, it became, and still is, the burden of the government to prove that the prime contractor is not responsible for the costs incurred by the subcontractor that are at issue in the pass-through suit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.