Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 WIS2D 525 - Schilling v. Stockel

Schilling v. Stockel’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
7
states following
November 2011
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably 74 Wis. 2d 526 - Coffey v. City of Milwaukee (1976), 94 Wis. 2d 17 - Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc. (1980)

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 63 state decisions

340196519701980199020002010decided

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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Christianson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. · Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc. · Klassa v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co. · Waube v. Warrington

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

  1. “[O]nce an act has been found to be negligent, we no longer look to see if there was a duty to the one who was in fact injured.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]n cases so extreme that it would shock the conscience of society to impose liability, the courts may step in and hold as a matter of law that there is no liability.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) The injury is too remote from the negligence; or (2) the injury is too wholly out of proportion to the culpability of the negligent tort-feasor; or (3) in retrospect it appears too highly extraordinary that the negligence should have brought about the harm; or (4) because allowance of recovery would place too unreasonable a burden on the negligent tort-feasor; or (5) because allowance of recovery would be too likely to open the way for fraudulent claims; or (6) allowance of recovery would enter a field that has no sensible or just stopping point.”
    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.