Busconi v. Dighello’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Malasky v. Metal Products Corp. (1997), 174 Conn. App. 476 - Bank of America, N.A. v. Chainani (2017)
3 federal appellate · 42 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
Applies 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 4 · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Connell v. Colwell · Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issues of material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law; and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, derived from the doctrine of res judicata, prohibits subsequent litigation of a different cause of action involving issues determined in a former action between the parties. . . . For a party to use the doctrine of collateral estoppel with success, three requirements must be met. The issue must have been fully and fairly litigated in the first action, it must have been actually decided, and the decision must have been necessary to the judgment. . . . The principles of collateral estoppel always apply where both of the parties in the second action were present in the first action. . . .”
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.