Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.2d 941 · 1975
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 26 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt (1983), Williams v. United States (1995)
33 federal appellate · 26 district · 5 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 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Indian Towing Company v. United States · United States v. Neustadt · Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. John H. Shaffer, Administrator (Acting) of the Federal Aviation Administration · Ng Kam Fook v. P a Esperdy
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It cannot be gainsaid that the FAA had to make some relatively high-level choices. It had to decide whether the waived requirements in AIL’s bid were, on the one hand, minor irregularities or mere differences in responsibility of the bidders, or, on the other, were essential requirements of responsiveness of the bid. It had to decide, in addition, whether to set aside all bids and to readvertise. Perhaps the agency’s actual choice amounted to an abuse of discretion which could be set aside in an injunctive or declaratory action, but we think there is no doubt that there was in fact some significant degree of choice and the contracting officer’s obligation was not purely ministerial.” 172 U.S.App.D.C. at 288 , 521 F.2d at 948 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This [the transfer back] satisfied the requirement that the real party in interest be identified as well as the rule of the Assignment of Claims Act, since the purposes of that statute — that the United States be able to deal with one claimant only, and that there be no trafficking in claims against the Government, see Patterson, supra, at 822-23, [ 354 F.2d 327 ],— have been served by the retransfer to the original claimant. 13”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[u]nder the former statute, it is clear that agency action is reviewable (by injunction, mandamus or declaratory judgment 4 ) for abuse of discretion, but under the latter even a gross abuse of discretion will not predicate an award of tort damages.”
1 later decision 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.