Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 F.2d 509 - Busche v. Burkee

Busche v. Burkee’s Empirical Analysis

649 F.2d 509 · 1981

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983), Mary Beth v. City of Chicago Tikalsky (1983)

81 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions

10801981199020002010decided

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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Wolff v. McDonnell · Carey v. Piphus · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex

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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'The allowance of such damages inherently involves an evaluation of the nature of the conduct in question, the wisdom of some form of pecuniary punishment, and the advisability of a deterrent. Therefore, the infliction of such damages, and the amount thereof when inflicted, are of necessity within the discretion of the trier of fact.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * Indeed, such a requirement would ‘stifle the presentation of innovative causes of action and would force courts to rule on every issue in a case, even if its rulings would be redundant.’ Ohland v. City of Montpelier, 467 F.Supp. 324, 349 (D.Vt.1979). We note with ap proval the definition of prevailing party set forth by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278 (1st Cir. 1978): ‘plaintiffs may be considered “prevailing parties” for attorney’s fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.’ ” Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d 509 at 521 (7th Cir. 1981).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a)lthough essentially subjective, genuine injury in this respect (mental suffering or emotional anguish) may be evidenced by one's conduct and observed by others.”
    2 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.