Haase v. Badger Mining Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Thomas Ex Rel. Gramling v. Mallett (2005), 341 Wis. 2d 119 - Marquez v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2012)
21 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 Dippel v. Sciano · 197 Wis. 2d 365 - Weiss v. United Fire & Casualty Co. · 122 Wis. 2d 94 - Helmbrecht v. St. Paul Insurance · Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc. · Soler v. Castmaster, Div. of HPM Corp.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law to support a verdict, or an answer in a verdict, shall be granted unless the court is satisfied that, considering all credible evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, there is no credible evidence to sustain a finding in favor of such party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing product components who sells or distrib utes a component is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by a product into which the component is integrated if: (a) the component is defective in itself, as defined in this Chapter, and the defect causes the harm; or (b)(1) the seller or distributor of the component substantially párticipates in the integration of the component into the design of the product; and (b)(2) the integration of the component causes the product to be defective, as defined in this Chapter; and (b)(3) the defect in the product causes the harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer ... is liable for physical harm ... if: (a) The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.”
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.