Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 WIS 202 - Wait v. Pierce

Wait v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

121
cited by 121 later decisions
30
states following
April 2008
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 110 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Goller v. White (1963), Bielski v. Schulze (1962)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 110 state decisions — followed in 30 states

240192619301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Bushnell v. Bushnell · Bennett v. . Bennett · Jessie Thompson v. Charles N Thompson · Craker v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · In Matter of Badger

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

  1. ““(1) Women shall have the same rights and privileges under the law as men in the exercise of suffrage, freedom of contract, choice of residence for voting purposes, jury service, holding office, holding and conveying property, care and custody of children, and in all other respects. . . .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * Whether the common obligation be imposed by contract or grows out of a tort, the thing that gives rise to the right of contribution is that one of the common obligors has discharged more than his fair equitable share of the common liability.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In the state of Wisconsin, where over and over again for more than fifty years the legislature has in the clearest and most explicit terms removed disabilities of the wife which existed at common law, conferred upon her rights of action against the husband which were totally unknown to the common law, and where it is held that a husband may maintain an action of replevin against the wife, or that the wife may sue the husband with respect to her property, we find no likelihood of the social order being shattered by holding that she has a right of action for injuries done to her person and character as well as to her property whether committed by the husband or third parties.”
    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.