United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
810 federal appellate · 321 district · 523 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,259 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. (1982), University of Tennessee v. Elliott (1986)
810 federal appellate · 321 district · 523 state decisions — followed in 42 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2501 · 41 U.S.C. § 321 · 50 U.S.C. § 1431
Relies on Commissioner v. Sunnen · Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins · United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co. · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Cited together with University of Tennessee v. Elliott · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. · United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co. · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
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 3,259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose.”
138 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“factors must be considered. We find that all three prerequisites were met in the present case. First, the State Board was acting in a judicial capacity when it reviewed the School Board's decision. 7 Second, the State Board resolved issues of fact (the circumstances surrounding Plough's suspension and expulsion) properly before it. Third, Plough had an adequate opportunity to litigate the facts underlying his due process claim during the State Board's de novo review of the School Board's proceedings. 8 10 To comply with Elliott 's mandate that an agency's factfindings be given the”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[N]o provision of any contract entered into by the United States, relating to the finality or conclusiveness of any decision of the head of any department or agency or his duly authorized representative or board in a dispute involving a question arising under such contract, shall be pleaded in any suit now filed or to be filed as limiting judicial review of any such decision to cases where fraud by such official or his said representative or board is alleged: Provided, however, That any such decision shall be final and conclusive unless the same is fradulent [sic] or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or is not supported by substantial evidence. "Sec. 2. No Government contract shall contain a provision making final on a question of law the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.