Franklin E. Penny Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
524 F.2d 668 · 1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Western Securities Co. v. Derwinski (1991), First National State Bank of New Jersey v. Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Norristown (1979)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1503 · 41 U.S.C. § 15
Relies on Algonac Manufacturing Co. v. United States · Algonac Manufacturing Co. v. United States · Paccon, Inc. v. United States · Scott v. United States · Scott v. 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he doctrine [of substantial completion] should not be carried to the point where the non-defaulting party is compelled to accept a measure of performance fundamentally less than had been bargained for.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b)uilding and construction contracts offer the most frequent examples of (the doctrine's) application.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“one could readily accept the proposition that such a listing constitutes a representation, i.e., a warranty by the Government, that the listed suppliers have the ability to do the work contemplated by the contract. Indeed, the common sense of the situation could tolerate no less a construction of such contract statements. But it is quite another matter to say, as the plaintiff also does, that in addition to guaranteeing the abilities of the listed manufacturers to perform, the Government is also warranting their willingness to do so and within the time period contemplated by the contract.”
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.