Electro-Methods, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
728 F.2d 1471 · 1984
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably NKF Engineering, Inc. v. United States (1986), Commercial Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States (1998)
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 637 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]t the time Electro asserted its claims it stood on solid ground as regards its implied contractual relationship with the Government, which by soliciting and receiving Electro’s bids had warranted that it would fairly and honestly consider them. The fact that Electro’s particular claims concerned its allegedly unfair suspension under DAR § 1-606 does not change this analysis, because of the effect of that suspension was (or would have been) to cause Electro to lose the award of contracts on which it had already bid and on which it was, at least in some instances, low bidder. We therefore affirm the Claims Court on its exercise of jurisdiction over this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In actions not based on an indictment, if it is found that the contractor’s submission in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the suspension and if no determination has been made, on the basis of Department of Justice advice, that substantial interests of the Government in pending or contemplated legal proceedings based on the same facts as the suspension would be prejudiced, agencies shall also— (i) Afford the contractor an opportunity to appear with counsel, submit documentary evidence, present witnesses, and confront any person the agency presents....”
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.