Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 Wis. 2d 506 - Watts v. Watts

137 Wis. 2d 506 - Watts v. Watts’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
10
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 88 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably 195 Wis. 2d 485 - M & I First National Bank v. Episcopal Homes Management, Inc. (1995), 193 Wis. 2d 649 - In Re Custody of HSHK (1995)

3 federal appellate · 88 state decisions — followed in 10 states

41019871990200020102020decided

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 18 Cal. 3d 660 - Marvin v. Marvin · 117 Wis. 2d 529 - Ball v. District No. 4, Area Board · 103 Wis. 2d 56 - Kranzush v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co. · Kozlowski v. Kozlowski · 96 Wis. 2d 663 - Scarpaci v. Milwaukee County

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

  1. “unmarried cohabitants may raise claims based upon unjust enrichment following the termination of their relationships where one of the parties attempts to retain an unreasonable amount of the property acquired through the efforts of both.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(1) a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit, and (3) acceptance or retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances making it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]n action for recovery based upon unjust enrichment is grounded on the moral principle that one who has received a benefit has a duty to make restitution where retaining such a benefit would be unjust.”
    5 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.