171 Wis. 2d 593 - Lecander v. Billmeyer’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Lambrecht v. Estate of Kaczmarczyk (2001), 174 Wis. 2d 10 - Fiumefreddo v. McLean (1993)
26 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 106 Wis. 2d 368 - State v. Alles · 58 Wis. 2d 569 - Trogun v. Fruchtman · 118 Wis. 2d 299 - Fehring v. Republic Insurance · 90 Wis. 2d 438 - Meurer v. ITT General Controls · 31 Wis. 2d 119 - Szafranski v. Radetzky
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) either a layman is able to determine as a matter of common knowledge or an expert testifies that the result which has occurred does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, (b) the agent or instrumentality causing the harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant, and (c) the evidence offered is sufficient to remove the causation question from the realm of conjecture, but not so substantial that it provides a full and complete explanation of the event.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen both parties have rested and a negligence case is ready for the jury, either of two conditions may exist which would render it error to give the res ipsa loquitur instruction. The first occurs when the plaintiff has proved too little — that is, if there has been no evidence which would remove the causation question from the realm of conjecture and placed it within the realm of permissible inferences. The second situation where it is also error occurs when the plaintiffs evidence in a given case has been so substantial that it provides a full and complete explanation of the event if the jury chooses to accept it. In that case the cause is no longer unknown and the instruction will be superfluous and erroneous. However, a middle ground exists between these two extremes where the instruction will still be proper.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[g]iving of the res ipsa loquitur instruction in general is a question of law which this court reviews independently,”
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.