Sherwin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
436 F.2d 992 · 1971
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. (1985), Ordnance Research, Inc. v. United States (1979)
2 district ·
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 41 U.S.C. § 321
Relies on United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co. · United States v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. · WPC Enterprises Inc. v. United States · WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States · Dynamics Corporation of America, as Successor in Interest to International Fermont, Inc. v. The 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unless otherwise specifically provided in this contract, reference to any equipment, material, article or patented process, by trade name, make, or catalog number, shall be regarded as establishing a standard of quality and shall not be construed as limiting competition, and the Contractor may, at his option, use any equipment, material, article, or process which, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, is equal to that named.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where an administrative board has failed to make a l’elevant finding of fact as to which the evidence is undisputed, this court has made such finding rather than referring the matter to the board. Likewise, where the evidence is disputed but it is of such a nature that as a matter of law the Board could have made only one finding of fact, it would seem that this court can make that finding without sending the matter back to the Board for determination of the factual issues; otherwise, litigation would be protracted and unnecessary delay and expense would result simply in order to have the Board formally decide a fact which legally can be decided in only one way. Such an empty ritual has no place in a rational decisionmaking process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“situations in which the court would be warranted, on the basis of the administrative record, in granting judgment for the contractor without the need for further administrative action.”
1 later decision 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.