State v. Wakeen’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 69 Cal. 2d 371 - Kugler v. Yocum (1968), Madrid v. St. Joseph Hospital (1996)
30 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Union Bridge Company v. United States · Commonwealth ex rel. McClain v. Locke · Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin · Ex Parte Gerino · State ex rel. Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v. Whitman
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the present case we have a complete act of the legislature which was not, at the time of its passage, dependent on the act of any other person or organization, but provided for the inclusion of articles discovered in the future with the advancement of science. It should not be held void because it provides for the inclusion of new discoveries, if approved by persons most eminent in the profession who are most interested in maintaining the highest standards known or to be known to science. This is not a case of the delegation of legislative powers. The publications referred to in the statute are not published in response to any delegation of power, legislative or otherwise, by the statute. The compendia are published independently of the statute and not in response to it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(1) Articles recognized in the official U.S. Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them, intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in persons or other animals; and "(2) All other articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in persons or other animals; and "(3) Articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of persons or other animals; and "(4) Articles intended for use as a component of any articles specified in subs. (1), (2) or (3) . . . ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This court has recognized also the rule that the legislature may enact a statute, the operation of which is dependent on the happening of a contingency fixed therein, and that such contingency may consist of the determination of some fact, even if said fact is determined by private individuals.” 263 Wis. at 407-08 . See also, Clintonville Transfer Line v. Public Service Comm., 248 Wis. 59, 68-69 , 21 N.W.2d 5 (1945).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.