Littell v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.2d 1207 · 1971
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Ness Investment Corp. v. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1975), Cox v. United States (1973)
26 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 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 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Dugan v. Rank
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he rationale for sovereign immunity essentially boils down to substantial bothersome interference with the operation of government.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 13 Fair empl.prac.cas. 868, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,208 Westinghouse Electric Corp. And Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Company v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Intervenor-Defendants. Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Co. v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Co. v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Westinghouse Electric Corp. And Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Company v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Intervenors-Appellants. Westinghouse Electric Corp. And Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Company v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Defendant-Intervenors. United States Steel Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, United States Steel Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, General Motors Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, General Motors Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense · Estinghouse Electric Corp. v. Schlesinger“weakening of general faith in the validity of the doctrine”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 13 Fair empl.prac.cas. 868, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,208 Westinghouse Electric Corp. And Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Company v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Intervenor-Defendants. Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Co. v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Co. v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Westinghouse Electric Corp. And Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Company v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Intervenors-Appellants. Westinghouse Electric Corp. And Its Subsidiary, Fraser & Johnston Company v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, Concerned Workers, Defendant-Intervenors. United States Steel Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, United States Steel Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, General Motors Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense, General Motors Corporation v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary, U. S. Department of Defense · Estinghouse Electric Corp. v. Schlesinger“The essential issues in the case are ones of contract interpretation and appropriate remedies if breach of contract is established. There is certainly no compelling agency expertise in this area of the law. These are questions always considered to have been within the special competence of the courts. The notion that the government can administratively give a unilateral and final interpretation to a contract under which it may be obligated to pay, and thereby avoid payment, is one that should not be encouraged.”
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.