Townsend v. McCall’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

cited by 43 later decisions

states following

January 2007

most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. (1997), Nielsen v. City of St. Paul (1958)

6 federal appellate · 33 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.

Relationships

Relies on Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. Rochester · American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States · Van Antwerp v. Board of Com'rs · Inge v. Board of Public Works of Mobile · Carson Cadillac Corporation v. City of Birmingham

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

“"The provision for letting the contract to the lowest responsible bidder is for the *Page 706 benefit of the public and does not confer on a bidder any right enforceable at law or in equity. . . ." (Emphasis added.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Spring Hill Lighting & Supply Co. v. Square D Co., Inc. · Urban Sanitation Corp. v. City of Pell City, Ala.
““ * * * As a result of the principle it was held that where one of the parties through mistake names a consideration out of all proportion to the value of the subject involved, and the other party realizes that a mistake has been made, the bid is not enforceable. This is a principle which seems to be fully recognized though the law may provide that a bidder shall not have authority to withdraw or cancel his bid until the board shall have let the contract. Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. City of Rochester, 178 U.S. 373 , 20 S.Ct. 957 , 44 L.Ed. 1108 ; 43 Am.Jur. 805, section 63; 80 A.L.R. 586 et seq.” Townsend v. McCall, 262 Ala. 554, 559 , 80 So.2d 262, 266 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Board of Water and Sewer Com'rs of Mobile v. Spriggs
“The award of each contract for which bids have been submitted to a municipality shall be made to the lowest responsible bidder who may comply with such reasonable regulations as may be prescribed before the bids are called for. (See note 3 below).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Urban Sanitation Corp. v. City of Pell City, Ala.

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.