McCarty Corp. v. Pullman-Kellogg’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc. · 289 So. 2d 116 - Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, Inc. · Jefferson Truck Equipment Co. v. Guarisco Motor Co. · 288 So. 2d 31 - Brignac v. Boisdore · Sylvester v. Town of Ville Platte
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny estimate of the volume of work set forth on drawings and/or specifications is not binding upon Contractor and is offered as an indication of scope of work only.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In bidding, CONTRACTOR shall expose to the bidders the maximum quantities required by the work so as to obtain all price and service concessions due to volume.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]ral explanations and interpretations made prior to the bid opening shall not be binding,”
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.