Burton v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis
614 F.2d 389 · 1980
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably St. Mary's Medical Center of Evansville, Inc. v. Disco Aluminum Products Co. (1992), Comsat Corporation v. National Science Foundation, and National Science Foundation Document Custodian Robert J. Dickman Hugh Van Horn, Comsat Corporation v. National Science Foundation National Science Foundation Document Custodian Robert J. Dickman Hugh Van Horn (1999)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 371 F. Supp. 240 - Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. v. Docutel Corporation · In re the Arbitration between Commercial Solvents Corp. & Louisiana Liquid Fertilizer Co. · H. K. Porter Company, Inc. v. Local 37, United Steelworkers Of America, Afl-Cio · International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local 66 v. Leona Lee Corp.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When contracting parties stipulate that disputes will be submitted to arbitration, they relinquish the right to certain procedural niceties which are normally associated with a formal trial. One of these accoutrements is the right to pre-trial discovery.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since Burton never applied to the district court for an order to compel discovery we need not consider those cases allowing discovery upon a showing of special need. In passing, however, we note that the former cases would not have aided the appellant since there is a total absence of special need or hardship.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In the Matter of the Application of Deiulemar Compagnia Di Navigazione S.P.A. For the Perpetuation of Certain Evidence v. M/v Allegra v. Pacific Eternity, S.A. Golden Union Shipping Co. S.A., Movants-Appellants · In the Matter of the Application of Deiulemar Compagnia Di Navigazione Spa for the Perpetuation of Certain Evidence v. M/v Allegra“While an arbitration panel may subpoena documents or witnesses, the litigating parties have no comparable privilege.”
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.