Laburnum Construction Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
325 F.2d 451 · 1963
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 192 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably J. D. Hedin Construction Co. v. United States (1965), Boyajian v. United States (1970)
9 federal appellate · 27 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 United States v. Spearin · United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co. · United States v. Blair ex rel. Roanoke Marble & Granite Co. · United States v. Rice · WPC Enterprises Inc. 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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * plaintiff maintains that any Government-caused delay was a breach of contract for which it ought to recover. Defendant says that the changes article permitted it to delay the contractor while it made changes in the specifications, and that, under that clause, plaintiff is entitled to receive only an extension of time and an equitable adjustment of the price to cover the increase in time and costs, plus a reasonable profit incident to the making of the change. "We think the critical factor in this case is that all of the delay to which plaintiff was subjected came about because the specifications were deficient. Were this not the case, defendant's contention would be correct: plaintiff would have no right to complain if the defendant's exercise of its reserved right to make changes set its work schedule awry. See J.A. Ross & Co. v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 187 , 126 Ct. Cl. 323 (1953). At least this would be so if defendant had acted with due alacrity. See Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 209 , 111 Ct. Cl. 252 (1948). In this case, however, plaintiff had contracted to do the work in accordance with the specifications defendant had prepared, and defendant was, therefore, under a duty not to render the project more expensive than it would have been if the contractor could have complied with the plans. In United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 , 39 S.Ct. 59 , 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918), the Supreme Court held that, in a case where the specifications prescr”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“an increase or decrease in the amount due under this contract, or in the time required for its performance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“make changes in the drawings and/or specifications of this contract and within the general scope thereof,”
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.