Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1984), Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine Company (1979)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Dippel v. Sciano · People v. Collins · West v. Caterpillar Tractor Company, Inc. · Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cross-Appellees · Springrose v. Willmore
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to be entitled as a matter of right to present rebutting evidence on an evidentiary fact: (a) the original evidence must be inadmissible and prejudicial, (b) the rebuttal evidence must be similarly inadmissible, and (c) the rebuttal evidence must be limited to the same evi-dentiary fact as the original inadmissible evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he charge of the trial court must be viewed in its entirety and from a practical and eommonsense point of view. The trial court is allowed considerable latitude in the language used, and a new trial will not be granted where requested instructions are refused when the general charge fairly and correctly states the applicable law. All that is required is that the charge as a whole convey to the jury a clear and correct understanding of the law. It is unnecessary that every possible opportunity for misapprehension be guarded against. If the charge fairly lays down the law of the case, it is sufficient.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] consumer's negligent failure to inspect a product or to guard against defects is not a defense and thus may not be compared with a distributor's strict liability. All other types of consumer negligence, misuse, or assumption of the risk must be compared with the distributor's strict liability under the statute.”
2 later decisions 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.