Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 666 F.2d 546 - Norair Engineering Corp. v. United States

Norair Engineering Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

666 F.2d 546 · 1981

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2012

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

901981199020002010decided

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 United States v. Rice · Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc. v. United States · Tombigbee Constructors 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Pressure applied, even if it were merely implicit ..., is particularly strong where liquidated damages hover in the background. Where the Government refuses (for whatever reason) to tell the contractor until the end of the project just what delay is excusable and what is not, the contractor is under considerable additional pressure to accede to a request because it does not know whether it will be found liable for liquidated damages____In short, while the Government recognized that some delays were validly excusable, it did not say which, and left it very clear that it disagreed with plaintiff as to the amount; therefore, plaintiff could have been required to accelerate work beyond what it thought was the proper rate (allowing for excusable delays) to avoid the risk of liquidated damages.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]n order to recover for the increased costs of acceleration under a changes clause, plaintiff must establish three things: (1) that any delays giving rise to the order were excusable, (2) that the contractor was ordered to accelerate, and (3) that the contractor in fact accelerated performance and incurred extra costs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[M]ere failure to grant an extension at the time will not constitute a constructive order to accelerate.”
    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.