Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 Wis. 2d 282 - Ranft v. Lyons

163 Wis. 2d 282 - Ranft v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
4
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 208 Wis. 2d 166 - In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook (1997), 179 Wis. 2d 346 - State v. Maday (1993)

29 state decisions

200199120002010decided

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 Hickman v. Taylor · Schlagenhauf v. Holder · Darden v. Wainwright · Sporck v. Peil · Shelton v. American Motors Corp.

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

  1. “'consistent with the facts of record and established legal principles.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Subject to par. (d) [which deals with the discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts] a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under par. (a) and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including an attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and that the party seeking discovery is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hat is good cause for discovery depends upon the reason a certain item is classified work product and the reason advanced for demanding discovery. This approach to the problem requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion by the trial judge confronted with the problem.”
    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.