Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 WIS 214 - Gerbing v. McDonald

Gerbing v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
4
states following
December 1983
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1983

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

30193019401950196019701980decided

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 Sparks v. Dispatch Transfer Co. · Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Tompkins · Chas. T. Derr Construction Co. v. Gelruth · Scullane v. Kellogg · Hamus v. Weber

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. ““Error is claimed because the court permitted the jury to assess doctor’s bills as an element of plaintiff’s damages in the absence of evidence of the reasonable value or necessity of the services charged for. The weight of authority seems to be that where the character of the injury and of the treatment and the services of the physician and the amount paid for the service are fully proved, this constitutes evidence from which the jury may allow damages although there is no proof of either necessity or the reasonable value of the services. (Citations omitted). Mere proof of injury and employment of and treatment by a physician entitles the jury to make an award for the service, in the absence of evidence of necessity for or the value of the service. (Citations omitted).” Id. at 218-19 , 229 N.W. at 862 .”
    2 later decisions 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.