Stott v. Markle’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kelly v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. Northwestern Iron Co. · Northern Wisconsin Co-operative Tobacco Pool v. Oleson · Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Lang · Schmidt v. Menasha Wooden Ware Co.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““From the language of sec. 326.12 (4) and the history of the discovery statute we are of opinion that the suppression of the defendants’ examination was erroneous. The court might . . . have limited the scope of the examination upon motion and a showing sufficient to warrant the exercise of its discretion to do so, but might not suppress it entirely.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hiller v. Perssion
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.