124 Wis. 2d 175 - Lundin v. Shimanski’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 173 Wis. 2d 30 - Grube v. Daun (1992), Kaloti Enterprises, Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co. (2005)
20 federal appellate · 52 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 97 Wis. 2d 260 - Wangen v. Ford Motor Co. · 94 Wis. 2d 17 - Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc. · 106 Wis. 2d 368 - State v. Alles · 80 Wis. 2d 525 - Cords v. Anderson · Kink v. Combs
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'The first type is that in which the defendant desires to cause the harm sustained by the plaintiff, or believes that the harm is substantially certain to follow his conduct. With the second type of conduct the defendant knows, or should have reason to know, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm, but also that there is a strong probability, although not a substantial certainty, that the harm will result but, nevertheless, he proceeds with his conduct in reckless or conscious disregard of the consequences. Neither form of conduct, therefore, involves mere inadvertence or what, in the traditional tort sense, would be called ordinary negligence.' J. Ghiardi & J. Kircher, Punitive Damages Law and Practice, ch. 5, sec. 5.01 at 8-9 (1984) (footnotes omitted); cited with approval in Lundin v. Shimanski, 124 Wis. 2d 175 n. 14 , 368 N.W.2d 676 (1985).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“any credible evidence in the record on which the jury could have based its decision,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is not necessary for a person to make oral misrepresentation[s] of fact in order to be guilty of fraudulent conduct,--such representations may be made by the acts or conduct of the party. The rule is stated in 1 Bigelow, Fraud, p. 467: 'any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is a representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts.'”
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.