Steffen v. Little’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
4 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 103 Wis. 2d 1 - Gutter v. Seamandel (1981), 101 Wis. 2d 396 - State v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations (1981)
4 district · 24 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Pennoyer v. Neff · Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson · Hess v. Pawloski · Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While statutes in general are construed prospectively the rule is otherwise with statutes whose operation is procedural or remedial. In State ex rel. Davis & Starr Lumber Co. v. Pors (1900), 107 Wis. 420, 427 , 83 N.W. 706 , we quoted Chancellor Kent as follows: “ ‘This doctrine [prospective construction of statutes only] is not understood to apply to remedial statutes, which may be of a retrospective nature, provided that they do not impair contracts or disturb absolute vested rights, and only go to confirm rights already existing and in furtherance of the remedy, by curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing existing obligations.’ “In Pawlowski v. Eskofski (1932), 209 Wis. 189, 192 , 244 N.W. 611 , we said: ‘It is true as a general rule that statutes that are remedial only are retroactive, . . .’ In State ex rel. Schmidt v. District No. 2 (1941), 237 Wis. 186, 190 , 295 N.W. 36 , we said: . . it is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that a retroactive operation is not to be given so as to impair an existing right or obligation otherwise than in matters of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment.’ (Emphasis supplied.)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * [Jurisdiction of the nonresident tortfeasor in personam rests on his contact with the state through his use of the public highway and the injury he inflicts on others while so using it * * *. Steffen v. Little, 2 Wis.2d 350 , 86 N.W.2d 622, 628 (1957).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Putnam“statutes of limitation go to matters of remedy, not to destruction of fundamental rights.”
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.