United States v. Merritt Meridian Construction Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
95 F.3d 153 · 1996
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. W&O, Inc. (2000), Rabbi Yitzchok Leblanc-Sternberg v. Robert Fletcher, (1998)
15 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Crawford Fitting Company v. Jt Gibbons Inc Champion International Corporation · West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey · Holmes v. United States · In Re Peterson
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“computer research is merely a substitute for an attorney's time that is compensable under an application for attorneys' fees and is not a separately taxable cost.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A judge ... of any court of' the United States may tax as costs the following: 1. Fees of the clerk and marshal; 2. Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case; 3. Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; 4. Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the ease; 5. docket fees under section 1923 of this title; 6. Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Moreover, the abandonment of the contract exception is limited to those situations where “the contractee is responsible for delays which are so unreasonable that they connote a relinquishment of the contract by the contractee with the intention of never resuming it.” Corinno, 502 N.Y.S.2d at 688 , 493 N.E.2d at 912 . The breach of contract exception is also a narrow one and applies “only for the breach of a fundamental, affirmative obligation the agreement expressly imposes on the contractee. Typical of such claims are those in which the contractee has failed in its obligation to obtain title to the work site or make it available to the contractor so that it may commence construction of the agreed upon improvements.” Id. Finally, the contractor’s burden of proving the exception is a heavy one. Manshul Constr. Corp. v. Board of Educ., 160 A.D.2d 643 , 559 N.Y.S.2d 260, 261 (1st Dep’t), lv. to appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 709 , 561 N.Y.S.2d 913 , 563 N.E.2d 284 (1990).”
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.