183 Wis. 2d 547 - Lindas v. Cady’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 189 Wis. 2d 541 - Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher (1995), 184 Wis. 2d 750 - City of Edgerton v. General Casualty Co. (1994)
9 federal appellate · 88 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Allen v. McCurry · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a final judgment is conclusive in all subsequent actions between the same parties as to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) could the party against whom preclusion is sought, as a matter of law, have obtained judicial review of the judgment; (2) is the question one of law that in volves two distinct claims or intervening contextual shifts in the law; (3) do significant differences in the quality or extensiveness of proceedings between the two courts warrant relitigation of the issue; (4) have the burdens of persuasion shifted such that the party seeking preclusion had a lower burden of persuasion in the first trial than in the second; or (5) are matters of public policy and individual circumstances involved that would render the application of collateral estoppel to be fundamentally unfair, including inadequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“considers] an array of factors in deciding whether issue preclusion is equitable in a particular case.”
5 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.