112 Wis. 2d 88 - Krueger v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably 39 Cal. 3d 862 - Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985), Bieneman v. City of Chicago (1988)
6 federal appellate · 41 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 Hines v. Davidowitz · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an unreasonable interference with the interests of an individual in the use and enjoyment of land.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The essence of a private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The final issue on review is whether a plaintiff should be permitted to recover damages for personal inconvenience, annoyance and discomfort caused by the existence of a nuisance even in the absence of any showing of monetary loss or bodily injury or illness. The Mitchells contend that because the plaintiff did not suffer actual bodily injury or property damages as a result of the aircraft noise, he has not suffered com-pensable damages. We disagree. We believe that such damages are separately and independently recoverable in a nuisance action based on the very essence of the tort of nuisance. The tort of nuisance gives legal protection to a person's interest in the unimpaired use and enjoyment of land. This protection extends not only to the preservation of the property itself but also to its enjoyable use.”
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.