Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 WIAPP 157 - Randall v. Felt

Randall v. Felt’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2025

5 state decisions

50200220102020decided

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 173 Wis. 2d 681 - Michelle T. Ex Rel. Sumpter v. Crozier · 90 Wis. 2d 74 - Ramsthal Advertising Agency v. Energy Miser, Inc. · 1 Wis. 2d 609 - Pfeifer v. Pfeifer · 87 Wis. 2d 339 - In Matter of Estate of Sorensen · 140 Wis. 2d 429 - Wachniak v. Estate of Frank

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

  1. “An issue is 'actually litigated' when it is 'properly raised, by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “during the judicial review hearing. The court's order vacating the administrative suspension is more akin to the Restatement's examples of nonlitigated circumstances, such as when an admission is given and evidence relating to the issue is never heard before a court and therefore a considered judgment is never made. ¶ 14. No testimony was taken or evidence introduced during the judicial review hearing. In fact, the entire discussion about the administrative suspension spans only one and one-half pages of the transcript from the hearing. The words”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The application of any sum withdrawn from a joint account by a party thereto shall not be subject to inquiry by any person, including any other party to the account and notwithstanding such other party's minority or other disability....”
    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.