21 Wis. 2d 175 - Underwood v. Karns’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2002
19 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 Perkins v. Peacock · Board of Education v. State ex rel. Reed · Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Commission · State ex rel. City of Baraboo v. Page · Gray Well Drilling Co. v. State Board of Health
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a statute relating to an administrative agency provides a direct method of judicial review of agency action, such method of review is generally regarded as exclusive, especially where the statutory remedy is plain, speedy, and adequate.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Sec. 344.03, Stats., sets out the procedure for obtaining judicial review of the commissioner’s acts. That section provides that any person aggrieved by any action of the commissioner may, within ten days after notice thereof, petition for review in the circuit court as provided in the Administrative Procedure Act (sec. 227.16). Where a statute relating to an administrative agency provides a direct method of judicial review of agency action, such method of review is generally re garded as exclusive, especially where the statutory remedy is plain, speedy, and adequate. . . . “In Perkins v. Peacock (1953), 263 Wis. 644, 649, 658 , 58 N.W.2d 536 , a certiorari proceeding-, this court held that sec. 40.303(9), Stats. 1949, which granted aggrieved persons the right to appeal from any order of the county school committee within thirty days, was the exclusive remedy for review of such order. . . . a “Since {the petitioner in this case] could have obtained a review under sec. $44.03, Stats., at the time of the suspension, mandamus will not lie. . . . “We hold that the remedy provided by sec. 344.03, Stats., is exclusive. . . .” 21 Wis.2d at 179-181 [emphasis added].”
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.