201 Wis. 2d 675 - Millen v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Turner v. Taylor (2003), 211 Wis. 2d 628 - Atkinson v. Mentzel (1997)
33 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 87 Wis. 2d 221 - Ludke v. Egan · S. S. Kresge Co. v. Winkelman Realty Co. · 181 Wis. 2d 207 - Friendship Village of Greater Milwaukee, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee · 169 Wis. 2d 412 - Kallas v. B&G REALTY · Niedfeldt v. Evans
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The easement is] appurtenant to lot 3, to which it is annexed, and cannot be enjoyed separate and distinct from the lot to which it belongs. Nor could [the owner of lot 3], to whom the right was originally granted, enlarge the right, and subject the servient estate to a new species of burden.. . . [I]t is well settled that, if a person has a right of way over the land of another to a particular close, he cannot enlarge it or extend it to other closes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The rule that the right ceases with necessity has no application to ways acquired by express grant... ; a right to a way so created cannot be defeated by showing that the owners have another convenient and accessible way of going to and from their premises.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We do not read Reise to say that if additional property is added onto the land which is appurtenant to the easement, the easement ceases to exist. Rather, Reise merely requires the easement to be appurtenant to the dominant estate.”
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.