21 Wis. 2d 182 - Pierringer v. Hoger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 14 district · 271 state decisions

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

1. “"* * * A release of one tort-feasor before trial and subsequent dismissal of the action and counter-claim against him does not complicate this problem. The instant releases contemplate such an issue of allocation as binding upon the plaintiff because he has satisfied that part of his cause of action for which liability is found to be attributable to the settling tort-feasors. The issue between the plaintiff and the nonsettling defendant, which should be framed by an amendment to the pleadings, is the percentage of causal negligence, if any, of the nonsettling defendant, but such percentage of negligence can only be determined by a proper allocation of all the causal negligence, if any, of all the joint tort-feasors and of the plaintiff if contributory negligence is involved. * * * "We have held in cases dealing with the comparison of negligence between a plaintiff and a defendant which involved the negligence of a nonparty that it was error not to include in the apportionment question submitted to the jury the causal negligence of the nonparty in order to determine the percentage of negligence of the defendant, but on the facts such error was not prejudicial. However, here, the failure to include in the apportionment question the causal negligence of the settling respondents would because of the releases necessarily be prejudicial to the nonsettling appellant. * * *" (Footnote omitted.)”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Austin v. Raymark Industries, Inc. · 87 Wis. 2d 193 - Gustavson v. O'BRIEN

2. “nonsettling defendant should only be for that percentage of negligence allocated to him by the findings or verdict,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Wis. 2d 443 - Hoff v. Wedin · 184 Wis. 2d 78 - Unigard Insurance v. Insurance Co. of North America

3. “(1) Partial Release To the specific extent hereinafter stated, Kyle F. Balk, Gemma Balk and Carl Balk acquits and forever discharges Karla A. Daentl, and any other firm, person or corporation which may be responsible for any negligence of Karla A. Daentl, of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, damages, injuries, costs, loss of services, expenses and compensation, on account of or in any way growing out of and all known and unknown injuries or damage resulting to or to result from the accident on or about the 14th day of January, 1983, which resulted in injuries to Kyle F. Balk (hereinafter "accident”); this release is a complete release of and from any and all claims up to but not exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). This release hereby credits and satisfies that portion of the total amount of damages of the undersigned which has been caused by the negligence, if any, of Karla A. Daentl or any other firm, person or corporation responsible for any such negligence of Karla A. Daentl, to the extent of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) as if the full sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars has been paid; this release, however, does not purport to satisfy any obligation of said Daentl on the basis of satisfying or releasing any percentage of negligence which might be attributed to him by a judge or jury in a later proceeding. (In other words, this is not a "Pierringer”-type release). (2) General Release Kyle F. Balk, Gemma Balk and Carl Bal”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Wis. 2d 1058 - Brandner v. Allstate Insurance · 138 Wis. 2d 339 - Balk v. Farmers Insurance Exchange