Locke v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.2d 521 · 1960
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 257 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Keco Industries, Inc. v. United States (1970), California Federal Bank, FSB v. United States (2001)
54 federal appellate · 3 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 Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Heyer Products Company v. United States · Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting 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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“... [T]he constant tendency of the courts is to find some way in which damages can be awarded where a wrong has been done. Bigelow et al. v. RKO Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251, 265 , 66 S.Ct. 574 , 90 L.Ed. 652 . Difficulty of ascertainment is not to be confused with right or recovery. Nor does it exonerate the defendant that his misconduct, which has made necessary the inquiry into the question of harm, renders that inquiry difficult. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 273 U.S. 359, 379 , 47 S.Ct. 400 , 71 L.Ed. 684 . The defendant who has wrongfully broken a contract should not be permitted to reap advantage from his own wrong by insisting on proof which by reason of his breach is unobtainable. Crichfield v. Julia, 2 Cir., 147 F. 65 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We agree that nothing in the contract would have prevented the Government from enlarging its own repair facilities to fill completely its needs. This would have left nothing to be awarded under the Federal Supply Schedule contracts. But the facts as alleged show that the Government did have some service requirements beyond its own capacity. Presumably, these requirements were awarded to contractors in the schedule. Plaintiffs chance of obtaining some of these awards, by being in the schedule and competing with the other contractors, had value in a business sense. The Government by its breach deprived plaintiff of this value.”
2 later decisions 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.