Merriam v. Kunzig’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.2d 1233 · 1973
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 23 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Davis v. Romney (1974), Ardmare Construction Co. v. Freedman (1983)
52 federal appellate · 23 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 2302 · 10 U.S.C. § 2305 · 12 U.S.C. § 1864 · 12 U.S.C. § 24 · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 77I (§ 9 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 16 U.S.C. § 825L (§ 313 of the Federal Power Act of 1920)
Relies on Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen · Sierra Club v. Morton · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“placed in the hands of the representatives of the Government the power to bind (them) to a contract.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not only the Government's interest in securing advantageous contracts, but also the interests of those responding to the Government's invitation to do business with it.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no right in Scanwell [the unsuccessful contract bidder] to have the contract awarded to it in the event the district court finds illegality in the award of the contract to Cutler-Hammer [the successful bidder]. Thus the essential thrust of [Scanwell's] claim on the merits is to satisfy the public interest in having agencies follow the regulations which control government contracting. The public interest in preventing the granting of contracts through arbitrary or capricious action can properly be vindicated through a suit brought by one who suffers injury as a result of the illegal activity, but the suit itself is brought in the public interest by one acting essentially as a `private attorney general.'”
3 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.