Luria Brothers & Company, Inc. v. The United States’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States (2008), Community Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Kelso (1993)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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 Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · United States v. Spearin · United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. · J. D. Hedin Construction Co. 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. It is a rare case where loss of productivity can be proven by books and records; almost always it has to be proven by the opinions of expert witnesses. However, the mere expression of an estimate as to the amount of productivity loss by an expert witness with nothing to support it will not establish the fundamental fact of resultant injury nor provide a sufficient basis for making a reasonably correct approximation of damages.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * It is well-settled that when the Government orders a structure to be built, and in so doing prepares the specifications prescribing the character, dimension and location of the construction work, it implicitly warrants that if the specifications are complied with, satisfactory performance will result. United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 , 39 S.Ct. 59 , 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918); Laburnum Constr. Corp. v. United States, 325 F.2d 451 , 163 Ct.Cl. 339 (1963). When, as here, defective specifications delay completion of the contract, the contractor is entitled to recover damages for defendant’s breach of this implied warranty. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, defendant is entitled to make necessary changes, but where the change is necessitated by defective plans and specifications defendant must pay the entire resulting damage without any deduction for time to make changes, as would be the case if the redesign were necessitated by a changed condition or the like.”
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.