United States v. Western Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis
337 F.2d 568 · 1964
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 18 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc. (1993), Chambers v. United States (1966)
47 federal appellate · 18 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Clifford Macevoy Co v. United States · United States Ex Rel. Sherman v. Carter Constr. Co. · Bohn Aluminum & Brass Corp. v. Storm King Corp. · Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the work was performed and the material supplied as a 'part of the original contract' or for the 'purpose of correcting defects, or making repairs following inspection of the project.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No objection was interposed to the use of this declaration at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. * * * [It] would have been subject to a motion to strike. Had appellees made such a motion or otherwise objected to the use of the declaration, the defect could have been remedied by appellants filing an affidavit in lieu of the declaration. Moreover, while Rule 56(e) does not state any different requirement for opposing affidavits than for the movant’s affidavits, ‘the papers supporting the movant are closely scrutinised whereas the opponent’s are indulgently treated” [Italics ours.]”
2 later decisions 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.