183 Wis. 2d 83 - Caulfield v. Caulfield’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 192 Wis. 2d 429 - Kotecki & Radtke, S.C. v. Johnson (1995), 200 Wis. 2d 750 - In RE MARRIAGE OF HAEUSER v. Haeuser (1996)
2 federal appellate · 22 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 136 Wis. 2d 304 - Green Spring Farms v. Kersten · 39 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Hutnik · 162 Wis. 2d 261 - Johnson v. Allis Chalmers Corp. · 101 Wis. 2d 460 - Rollins Burdick Hunter of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Hamilton · 109 Wis. 2d 399 - Ritchie v. Clappier
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary judgment is appropriate to determine whether there are any disputed factual issues for trial and 'to avoid trials where there is nothing to try.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e first examine the pleadings to determine whether they state a claim for relief. If the pleadings state a claim and the responsive pleadings join the issue, we then must examine the evidentiary record to analyze whether a genuine issue of material fact exists or whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further, "[o]n summary judgment, we must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, including questions of credibility and of the weight to accorded particular evidence."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A material misrepresentation of fact may render a contract void or voidable.” Bank of Sun Prairie v. Esser, 155 Wis. 2d 724, 731 , 456 N.W.2d 585 (1990). "The parol evidence rule does not exclude evidence to show misrepresentation as a ground for avoidance of the contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Batt v. Sweeney
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.