United States v. William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co.’s Empirical Analysis
206 U.S. 118 · 1907
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Cannon Construction Co. v. United States (1963), H.L.C. & Associates Construction Co. v. United States (1966)
20 federal appellate · 20 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on McElrath v. United States · Fire Insurance Ass'n v. Wickham · Coulter v. . Board of Education · McIntyre v. Williamson
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Stipulations of this kind are not to be shorn of their efficiency by any narrow, technical, and close construction. The general language “all and all manner of debts,” etc. indicates an intent to make an ending of every matter arising under or by virtue of the contract. If parties intend to leave some things open and unsettled, their intent so to do should be made manifest. * * * [Id. at 128, 27 S.Ct. at 678-679 .]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Manifestly, included within this was every claim arising not merely from a change in the specifications, but also growing out of delay caused by the government. The language is not alone ‘claims under,’ but ‘claims by virtue’ of the contract, — claims of any kind or description.’ All the claims for which allowances were made in the judgment of the court of claims come within one or the other of these clauses. It may be that, strictly speaking, they were not claims under the contract, but they were clearly claims by virtue of the contract. Without it no such claims could have arisen. Now, it having been provided in advance that the contract should be closed up by the exeeution of a release of this kind, it cannot be that the company, when it signed the release, understood that some different kind of release was contemplated. It must have understood that it was the release required by the contract, — a release intended to be of all claims of any kind or description under or by virtue of the contract ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No payment of moneys not due is necessary to sustain this release. It is under seal, and the contract is itself full consideration, (emphasis added).”
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.