Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 WIS2D 11 - Schmidt v. Chapman

Schmidt v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2015

8 state decisions

60196419701980199020002010decided

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 Laycock v. Parker · Anderson v. Eggert · McGaw v. Wassmann · Hickman v. Wellauer · Christensen v. Mann

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

  1. ““ ‘In case of negligence on the part of the excavator, he will be liable for injury to the building caused thereby, although the land would not have fallen had there been no buildings thereon. The degree of care to be exercised, in order that the excavator may be immune from a claim for damages by the owner of adjoining real estate not in its natural condition, must be commensurate with the apparent or actual danger. The care required in each particular case depends largely upon the particular facts and circumstances and the physical conditions existing in each case. This rule does not make the excavator an insurer of the building on adjoining property. It goes no further than to require him to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care to avoid injuring such building.’ ” Schmidt v. Chapman, 26 Wis.2d 11 , 131 N.W.2d 689 . Thompson, Real Property (1961) replacement, p. 660, sec. 416.”
    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.