Discount Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
554 F.2d 435 · 1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States (1987), McDonnell Douglas Corporation General Dynamics Corporation v. United States (1999)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1491 · 41 U.S.C. § 321
Relies on Ng Kam Fook v. P a Esperdy · G. L. Christian & Associates v. United States · Schlesinger v. United States · Aias v. Louisiana · G. L. Christian & Associates 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“justifiably insecure about the contract's timely completion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The record is plain, however, that the default termination was not based on this demand per se but rather on the over-all evidence of Discount's failure to prosecute diligently its work under the contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the default clause in this contract did not require a finding that completion within the contract's time limitations was impossible”
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.