Fringer v. Venema’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2006 · most notably Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones (2006), State v. Williams (2001)
34 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 Wells v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance · Ritholz v. Johnson · McCarty v. Weber · Reichert v. Rex Accessories Co. · State ex rel. Northwestern Development Corp. v. Gehrz
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“so as to afford them an opportunity of consulting the same sources or of producing others.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““We deem this statute sufficiently broad to allow a motion to review the findings of fact entered by the trial court and commend its use to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, or award a new trial in appropriate instances. Counsel has not cited a Wisconsin case, nor have we found one, requiring that a motion to review be brought in the trial court as a prerequisite to a consideration of the alleged error on appeal in a non jury case. While we approve and commend the practice, we do not at this time declare it to be mandatory but reserve this question for subsequent opinion or court rule.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We think it appropriate to apply a rebuttable presumption that the bull was six months old where the plaintiff or claimant has established that the defendant owned the bull, allowed him to run at large, and that the bull escaped his enclosure and did damage to the property or person of another. "The application of a rebuttable presumption does not impose an unfair burden upon the owner or keeper of the bull. He is in a much superior position to know the actual age of the animal. The rebuttable presumption only requires him to come forward with some evidence as to its age and if he does, the presumption drops out and the claimant has the burden to prove the bull was six months old or older before he can recover his damage."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sumpter v. State
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.