Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 ILL 93 - Wiedeman v. Keller

Wiedeman v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
17
states following
May 1993
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 1993 · most notably 32 Ill. 2d 612 - Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps (1942)

5 federal appellate · 54 state decisions — followed in 17 states

17018971900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedWiedeman v. Keller

Relationships

Relies on Sheffer v. Willoughby · Divine v. McCormick · Edwards v. Elbert

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

  1. ““As a general rule, we think the decided weight of authority in the United States is that in all sales of meats or provisions for immediate domestic use by a retail dealer there is an implied warranty of fitness and wholesomeness for consumption. There is, however, no implied warranty of soundness or wholesomeness arising from the sale of meats or provisions to a dealer or middleman who buys on the market, not for consumption, but for sale to others. Nor would there be any liability, in a sale for immediate domestic use, where the vendor was not a regular dealer. * * * In this case, however, the appellee was a regular retail dealer, and as such he sold the meat to appellant for domestic use, and, under the law as it seems to be settled in this country, as the meat turned out to be unwholesome, he was liable, although he was not aware that it was diseased when he sold it to appellant.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.