Algonac Manufacturing Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Russell Corp. v. United States (1976), Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States (1981)
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1503 · 28 U.S.C. § 2501 · 28 U.S.C. § 2516 · 41 U.S.C. § 321
Relies on United States v. Munsey Trust Co. · Baltimore Co v. United States · Merritt v. United States · United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co. · Schillinger 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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court does not have jurisdiction of claims based upon contracts implied in law. The Supreme Court said in Merritt v. United States, 267 U.S. 338 , 341, 45 S.Ct. 278 , 279, 69 L.Ed. 643 (1925): * * * The Tucker Act does not give a right of action against the United States in those cases where, if the transaction were between private parties, recovery could be had upon a contract implied in law. * * * See also J. C. Pitman & Sons v. United States, 317 F.2d 366 , 161 Ct.Cl. 701 , 704-5 (1963) and cases there cited. This court does have jurisdiction of claims based on contracts implied in fact. See New York Mail & Newspaper Trans. Go. v. United States, 154 F.Supp. 271 , 276, 139 Ct.Cl. 751 , 759 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 904 , 78 S.Ct. 332 , 2 L.Ed.2d 260 [Id., 428 F.2d at 1256 , 192 Ct.Cl. at 674 .] 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Thus a contract implied in fact is a true contract, the agreement of the parties being inferred from the circumstances, while a contract implied in law is but a duty imposed by law and treated as a contract for the purposes of a remedy only. Another distinction * * * lies in the fact that, * * * in the case of contracts implied in fact, there must be an assent of the parties, as in express contracts, whereas * * * in the case of contracts implied in law, or, more properly, quasi or constructive contracts, such element of assent is lacking. The distinction has also been stated -that a contract implied in fact is an implied contract in which the intention is ascertained and enforced, while a contract implied in law is a mere fiction, the intention being disregarded, and the quasi contractual obligation being imposed by law to bring about justice, without regard to the intention of the parties. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.”
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.