Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 WI 89 - Marotz v. Hallman

Marotz v. Hallman’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell (2010), Blum ex rel. Studinski v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance (2010)

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

200200720102020decided

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 State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County · 119 Wis. 2d 722 - Kremers-Urban Co. v. American Employers Insurance Co. · Folkman v. Quamme · Bruno v. Milwaukee County · 155 Wis. 2d 808 - Smith v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance

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

  1. “in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “For inconsistencies to alter the construction of an otherwise unambiguous provision, the inconsistencies must be 'material to the issue in dispute....'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “632.32 Provisions of motor vehicle insurance policies. (5) PERMISSIBLE PROVISIONS. (i) A policy may provide that the limits under the policy for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for bodily injury or death resulting from any one accident shall be reduced by any of the following that apply: 1. Amounts paid by or on behalf of any person or organization that may be legally responsible for the bodily injury or death for which the payment is made.”
    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.