Busik v. Levine’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 26 district · 298 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 384 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America (1974), Guin v. Ha (1979)
33 federal appellate · 26 district · 298 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3402 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Johnson v. Stevenson · Boesche v. Udall · Burlington County Bridge Commission v. Driscoll · Winberry v. Salisbury
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 384 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not punitive, Wilentz v. Hendrickson, 135 N.J.Eq. 244, 255-256 [38 A.2d 199] (E. & A.1944); ... it is compensatory, to indemnify the claimant for the loss of what the moneys due him would presumably have earned if payment had not been delayed.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[I]t is simplistic to assume that all law is divided neatly between `substance' and `procedure.' A rule of procedure may have an impact upon the substantive result and be no less a rule of procedure on that account. Speaking of the proposition that a court may not promulgate rules governing substantive law in the exercise of their rule-making power, Professors Levin and Amsterdam agreed that `rational separation is well-nigh impossible.' `Legislative Control over Judicial Rule-making: A Problem in Constitutional Revision,' 107 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1, 14-15 (1958). See also State v. Otis Elevator Co., 12 N.J. 1, 24 , 95 A.2d 715 (1953) (Jacobs, J., dissenting). As said in Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 471 , 85 S.Ct. 1136, 1144 , 14 L.Ed.2d 8, 16-17 (1965), `The line between "substance" and "procedure" shifts as the legal context changes. "Each implies different variables depending upon the particular problem for which it is used."' One context is conflict of laws; another is retrospective application of statutes; and a third is law-making, the subject at hand."”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Post Judgment Interest (ii) For judgments not exceeding the monetary limit of the Special Civil Part at the time of entry, regardless of the court in which the action was filed: commencing January 2, 1986 and for each calendar year thereafter, the annual rate of interest shall equal the average rate of return, to the nearest whole or one-half percent, for the corresponding preceding fiscal year terminating on June 30, of the State of New Jersey Cash Management Fund (State accounts) as reported by the Division of Investment in the Department of the Treasury. (iii) For judgments exceeding the monetary limit of the Special Civil Part at the time of entry: in the manner provided for in subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule until September 1, 1996; thereafter, at the rate provided in subparagraph (a)(ii) plus 2% per annum. (b) Tort Actions [T]he court shall, in tort actions, ... include in the judgment simple interest, calculated as hereafter provided, from the date of the institution of the action or from a date 6 months after the date the cause of action arises, whichever is later, provided that in exceptional cases the court may suspend the running of such prejudgment interest.... Prejudgment interest shall be calculated in the same amount and manner provided for by paragraph (a) of this rule except that for all periods prior to January 1, 1988 interest shall be calculated at 12% per annum....”
9 later decisions 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.