Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 WIS 461 - Consaul v. Loennecker

Consaul v. Loennecker’s Empirical Analysis

1901

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
March 1942
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1942

11 state decisions

6019011910192019301940decided

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 Disch v. Timm · Fox v. Martin · Doyle v. Welch

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

  1. ““When these facts are shown to exist, and especially when they exist with other facts out of the usual course of business transactions of such a nature, the presumption will arise which will put the beneficiary to his proof of good faith and freedom from undue influence. Whether the testimony shows these preliminary facts with sufficient clearness and certainty is a matter to be decided by the trial court.””
    1 later decision 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.