209 Wis. 2d 284 - Claypool v. Levin’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Aicher Ex Rel. LaBarge v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund (2000), 211 Wis. 2d 312 - Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee (1997)
2 federal appellate · 22 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 113 Wis. 2d 550 - Hansen v. AH Robins, Inc. · 130 Wis. 2d 397 - Borello v. U.S. Oil Co. · 194 Wis. 2d 302 - Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee · 42 Wis. 2d 750 - Holifield v. Setco Industries, Inc. · McCluskey v. Thranow
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Health care providers; minors actions. Any person under the age of 18, who is not under disability by reason of insanity, developmental disability or imprisonment, shall bring an action to recover damages for injuries to the person arising from any treatment or operation performed by, or for any omission by a health care provider within the time limitation under s. 893.55 or by the time that person reaches the age of 10 years, whichever is later. That action shall be brought by the parent, guardian or other person having custody of the minor within the time limit set forth in this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“plaintiff has information that would constitute the basis for an objective belief of her injury and its cause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The drafting record for this law reveals that the medical malpractice section was designed to address the outcome of "Olson v. St. Croix." See Olson, 55 Wis. 2d 628 , 201 N.W.2d 63 (1972). In Olson , the plaintiff alleged that she was given the wrong type of blood in a blood transfusion that she received in 1962. Olson, 55 Wis. 2d at 630 . On December 1, 1966, the plaintiff gave birth to a child that died seven hours later. Id. On December 9, 1969, she delivered a stillborn child. Id. The plaintiff alleged that the deaths of the children were the result of negligence by the hospital and that she did not discover that the wrong type of blood had been given to her until the still birth of the second child. Id. at 630-31 . The relevant statute of limitations provided that the action must be brought within three years of the injury. Id. at 631 . This court first concluded that the alleged injury occurred at the time of the blood transfusion. Id. at 632-33 . The court then declined to adopt the discovery and thus held that suit was barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 633-34 . In so holding this court stated: "While, as we pointed out in McCluskey, there may be merit to the discovery rule, the state of the facts presented herein is not conducive to modification of the present holdings of this court." Id. at 633 .”
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.