Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 F.3d 1333 - Richard J. Danzig, Secretary of the Navy v. Aec Corporation

Richard J. Danzig, Secretary of the Navy v. Aec Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

224 F.3d 1333 · 2000

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. United States (2003), 399 N.J. Super. 158 - Spring Creek Holding Company, Inc. v. Shinnihon USA Co., Ltd. (2008)

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

180200020102020decided

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 Dingley v. Oler · Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States · Zane, in Re Matter Of · Cascade Pacific International v. United States · Discount Co. 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) Where reasonable grounds arise to believe that the obligor will commit a breach by nonperformance that would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach ... the obligee may demand adequate assurance of due performance and may, if reasonable, suspend any performance for which he has not already received the agreed exchange until he receives such assurance. (2) The obligee may treat as a repudiation the obligor's failure to provide within a reasonable time such assurance of due performance as is adequate in the circumstances of the particular case.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The contractors’ oral and written statements in the wake of the cure notice unambiguously gave the Government no “continuing sense of reliance and security that the promised performance ... [would] be forthcoming when due____ Given this, AEC requires, as a matter of law, that the judgment sustain the default be af-firmed____The Panel’s failure to mention the substantive holding of AEC creates the impression that AEC may not present the law of the Circuit.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “AEC’s assertions of government-caused delay ... did not respond adequately to the Navy’s request for assurances. Although AEC referred to government-caused delays in both the April 3 and April 5 letters, it was not specific as to what changes had caused delay or how much delay it considered the government to have caused, nor did it represent that it could complete the contract within the additional time to which it believed it was entitled.”
    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.