Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 254 N.J. Super. 282 - Marvec Const. v. Belleville Tp.

254 N.J. Super. 282 - Marvec Const. v. Belleville Tp.’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

2 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2016

2 district · 10 state decisions

80199220002010decided

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 Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman · Campbell v. Department of Civil Service · Henry v. Rahway State Prison · Township of Hillside v. Sternin · City of Newark v. Natural Resource Council in the Department of Environmental Protection

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

  1. “demanded until the `favorite son' candidate is awarded the contract.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The Township Council followed the desires of the funding source, HUD, and considered all of the appropriate factors in rendering its decision to reject all bids. Those factors included the continued interest in the project by the Township, the continued interest in the project by the prospective bidders, the recommendations of the consulting engineer and Township Manager, the favorable economic climate for bidding of public improvement projects, a general decline in construction costs, the Township Manager's past experience with rebidding of projects, the change in the expediency with which the project needed to be completed and a minimum saving of approximately $15,000 between the lowest and next lowest bid. The Township weighed these factors in an appropriate fashion as directed by our courts and statutes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`have ... been opened and each bidder's competitive position has been exposed, rejection of all bids should only occur for cogent or compelling reasons.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.