Cohen v. Bucci’s Empirical Analysis
905 F.2d 1111 · 1990
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably La Preferida, Inc. v. Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V. (1990), In the Matter of Fbn Food Services Inc River Bank America (1996)
15 federal appellate · 2 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 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 11 U.S.C. § 727
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Crowder v. Lash · Reichman v. United States Fire Insurance · Lovell v. Mixon · Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund v. Angelos
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.
“[i]ssue preclusion applies to a question that has been 'actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, [if] the determination is essential to the judgment'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“i. Unforeseeability that issue would arise in the context of the second action. As noted in § 27, Comment J., it is not necessary to the application of the rule of preclusion that the issue be one of “ultimate fact” in either the first or the second action. But at the same time, preclusion should not operate to foreclose redetermination of an issue if it was unforeseeable when the first action was litigated that the issue would arise in the context of the second action, and if that lack of foreseeability may have contributed to the losing party’s failure to litigate the issue fully. Such instances are rare, but they may arise, for example, between institutional litigants as a result of a change in the governing law. Thus, a determination in an action between the taxing authorities and a corporate taxpayer that a transfer of property has not occurred may become relevant to a wholly different question of liability under an amendment to the tax law passed after the initial judgment was rendered. Another example of a case in which a determination may have unforeseeable consequences is one in which that determination is relevant to a claim involving property acquired after the first judgment has become final.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Adversary proceedings in bankruptcy are not distinct pieces of litigation; they are components of a single bankruptcy case.”
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.