Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 713 F.2d 1541 - United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

713 F.2d 1541 · 1983

Citation profile

268
cited by 268 later decisions
2
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 268 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Erickson Air Crane Company of Washington Inc v. United States (1984), Fortec Constructors v. United States (1985)

31 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

12401983199020002010decided

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. § 601 (Contract Disputes Act of 1978) · 41 U.S.C. § 602 · 41 U.S.C. § 605 · 41 U.S.C. § 606

Relies on United States v. Mitchell · United States v. King · United States v. Munsey Trust Co. · Merritt v. United States · Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. 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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he prime contractor was (1) acting as a purchasing agent for the government, (2) the agency relationship between the government and the prime contractor was established by clear contractual consent, and (3) the contract stated that the government would be directly liable to the vendors for the purchase price.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]n interpretation which gives a reasonable meaning to all parts of an instrument will be preferred to one which leaves a portion of it useless, inexplicable, inoperative, void, insignificant, meaningless, or superfluous; nor should any provision be construed as being in conflict with another unless no other reasonable interpretation is possible.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'An interpretation that gives a reasonable meaning to all parts of the contract will be preferred to one that leaves portions meaningless'”
    6 later decisions 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.