140 Wis. 2d 455 - Stuart v. Stuart’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance (1996), Kruckenberg v. Harvey (2005)
34 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 136 Wis. 2d 304 - Green Spring Farms v. Kersten · 113 Wis. 2d 306 - DePratt v. West Bend Mutual Insurance · Wait v. Pierce · 47 Wis. 2d 171 - Mortgage Associates, Inc. v. Monona Shores, Inc. · 38 Wis. 2d 98 - Zelinger v. State Sand & Gravel Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'If an abused spouse cannot commence a tort action subsequent to a divorce, the spouse will be forced to elect between three equally unacceptable alternatives: (1) Commence a tort action during the marriage and possibly endure additional abuse; (2) join a tort claim in a divorce action and waive the right of jury trial on the tort claim; or (3) commence an action to terminate the marriage, forego the tort claim, and surrender the right to recover damages arising from spousal abuse.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Resolution of tort claims may necessarily involve numerous witnesses and other parties such as joint tortfeasors and insurance carriers whose interests are at stake. Consequently, requiring joinder of tort claims in a divorce action could unduly lengthen the period of time before a spouse could obtain a divorcee and result in such adverse consequences as delayed child custody and support determinations."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Requiring joinder does not fulfill the objectives of the res judicata doctrine. Res judicata seeks judicial economy in the conservation of those resources parties would expend in repeated and needless litigation of issues [which were or might have been] resolved in a single prior action____ [D]ivorce and tort actions lack an identity of causes of action or claims. Applying the res judicata doctrine to bar the tort action fails to achieve the doctrine’s objectives and would be fundamentally unfair. Therefore, we conclude that a doctrine of res judicata cannot act as a bar to [a post-divorce] tort action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nash v. Overholser
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.