Lines v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co. (1983), Pocatello Industrial Park Co. v. Steel West, Inc. (1980)
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 28 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 21 Wis. 2d 182 - Pierringer v. Hoger · Wild v. Rarig · Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. Snelgrove · 68 Wis. 2d 42 - Connar v. West Shore Equipment of Milwaukee, Inc. · E.C.I. Corp. v. G.G.C. Co.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen apportioning negligence, a jury must have the opportunity to consider the negligence of all parties to the transaction, whether or not they be parties to the lawsuit and whether or not they can be liable to the plaintiff or to the other tort-feasors either by operation of law or because of a prior release.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(i)f there is 'evidence of conduct which, if believed by the jury, would constitute negligence (or fault) on the part of the person ... inquired about,' the fault or negligence of that party should be submitted to the jury”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he statement of the case as to the details of the action are intended for the convenience of the court and also possibly for the information of opposing counsel. However, detailed discovery of an opponent’s position obviously should be obtained through written interrogatories or taking the deposition of the opposing party.” (emphasis added).”
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.