110 Wis. 2d 86 - Westfall Ex Rel. Terwilliger v. Kottke’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably 110 Wis. 2d 581 - D.L. Ex Rel. Friederichs v. Huebner (1983), 164 Wis. 2d 306 - D'Huyvetter v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products (1991)
40 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 Bentzler v. Braun · 80 Wis. 2d 91 - Chart Ex Rel. Sommer v. General Motors Corp. · 70 Wis. 2d 743 - Lutz v. Shelby Mutual Insurance · 99 Wis. 2d 179 - Swanigan v. State Farm Insurance · 83 Wis. 2d 749 - Kuhlman, Inc. v. G. Heileman Brew. Co., 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Considerable emphasis is placed upon the fact that West-fall was only fourteen and an unlicensed driver. The trial court appeared to place substantial reliance on the fact of Westfall’s extreme youth and that he did not have a license to operate a motorcycle. The court of appeals properly concluded that it was erroneous to base negligence upon these factors, which are unrelated to the actual conduct of the person inquired about. The fact plaintiff Westfall was unlicensed did not constitute a cause of the accident. It was erroneous to instruct the jury that either the age of the operator or that he was unlicensed were factors to be considered in determining whether he was negligent. [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e conclude and hold that the inconsistency on the face of the verdict was irreconcilable, that having submitted the question of negligence in respect to both parties to the jury, it was inappropriate as a matter of hindsight to resolve the question of negligence or of cause in respect to either party as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`When a jury returns a verdict containing errors, inconsistencies or lack of compliance with the directions of the special verdict and instructions, the trial court may direct the jury's attention generally to the prospective error and require it to deliberate further to correct any errors that may exist.'”
2 later decisions 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.