Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 Wis. 290 - Ryan v. Olson

Ryan v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
March 1941
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1941

3 state decisions

10192419301940decided

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 Ellis v. State · Webster v. Douglas County · Barker v. Western Union Telegraph Co. · Edward E. Gillen Co. v. City of Milwaukee · Patten Paper Co. v. Kaukauna Water-Power 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The defendant Olson being charged with the commission of a fraudulent act, and it being alleged that he participated therein, the court could award damages against him. At any rate, it being alleged in the complaint that he is interested in the transaction, under the provisions of sec. 2603 he was made a proper party defendant, and particularly is this so in view of the fact that this action is one in equity. . . . Furthermore, by virtue of the discovery statutes, a valuable right would accrue to the plaintiff in enabling him to examine the defendant adversely both before and after pleading, and particularly is this so under the provisions of sec. 4068, pursuant to which he may as a party be called adversely on the trial. “We therefore conclude that while the defendant Olson is not a necessary party, nevertheless, he is a proper party, and that the court properly overruled the demurrer of such defendant on the first ground stated.””
    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.