Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 FSUPP 910 - Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc.

Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
December 2011
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2011

3 federal appellate · 4 district ·

40196319701980199020002010decided

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 New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Kinney · New York Cent Co v. Kinney · International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co. · United States ex rel. Bryant Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Moore v. Coats Co.

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied.” 4 . To be sure, the exact relationship between the Agreement, on the one hand, and Defendant’s bond obligations, on the other, is somewhat unclear. Accordingly, Plaintiff may well have been under the impression that it could not pursue the bond until the REA process was complete. Nonetheless, four days after it was notified that the Navy had disallowed the REA and still within the limitations period, Plaintiff notified Defendant that it”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'at the worst, a mere formal irregularity, and should not affect either the jurisdiction of the court or the merits of the controversy.’ ” Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 910, 913 (W.D.Ky.1963) (quoting United States ex rel. Maxwell v. Barrett, 135 F. 189, 191 (C.C.N.D.Cal.1905)), aff’d, 331 F.2d 467 (6th Cir.1964). See also Hendry Corp. v. Am. Dredging Co., 318 F.2d 299, 301 (5th Cir.1963) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in the name of the United States for the use of the person bringing the action.”
    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.