Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 247 Wis. 208 - Kies v. Hopper

Kies v. Hopper’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 1965
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1965

8 state decisions

50194519501960decided

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 Fontaine v. Fontaine · McCoy v. Terhorst · John v. Pierce · Jolitz v. Fintch · George M. Danke Co. v. Marten

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

  1. ““ Tn such cases we do not reverse merely because, upon the record before us, we come to a different conclusion. It must clearly appear that there was an abuse of judicial discretion before we reverse. In John v. Pierce, 176 Wis. 220, 224 , 186 N. W. 600 , the rule is thus stated: “A discretion is vested in the trial court to grant a new trial when he feels that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, and this court will not disturb his action in that respect where the evidence is such that conflicting conclusions may be reached by different persons,” . . . Trial judges must be left free, nay, must be encouraged, to exercise a sound judicial discretion in such matters. The rights of neither parties are concluded by granting a new trial. Both have a right to submit their respective claims to a new tribunal, believed by the trial judge better qualified to pass thereon.’ ””
    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.