Klump v. Cybulski’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably 75 Wis. 2d 116 - Falkner v. Northern States Power Co. (1977), 78 Wis. 2d 26 - Sprecher v. Weston's Bar, Inc. (1977)
35 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 Driver v. Western Union Railroad · Skalicky v. Friendship Electric Light & Power Co. · Manns v. Marinette & Menominee Paper Co. · Tobin v. Willow River Power Co. · Swenson v. Milwaukee County
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.
““The determination of necessity is primarily for the legislature, and the judgment of the party to whom such determination has been delegated (in this case the Power Company) is beyond question by any court if there is reasonable ground to support it. . . . “The right to locate the power line is given to the Power Company and the location cannot be challenged unless that right is arbitrarily or oppressively exercised. Blair v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. 187 Wis. 552, 558 , 203 N. W. 912 . A court will not interfere with the choice unless necessary to prevent an abuse of discretion by an attempted taking in utter disregard of necessity for it. Swenson v. Milwaukee County, 266 Wis. 129, 133 , 63 N. W. (2d) 103 . Where a condemnor is given the right by statute to determine necessity, its choice of location cannot be challenged on the ground that another location on its own land would be as convenient and cheaper. Swenson v. Milwaukee County, 266 Wis. 129, 132 , 63 N. W. (2d) 103 . “In the light of these principles, it is not for the court to decide whether the Power Company is making the best decision with respect to location of its power circuits or the need for acquiring the desired easement. Judicial interference with the utility’s determination would at most be warranted only by a convincing showing that the determination is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not made in good faith.” 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The clerk shall thereupon enter the appeal as an action pending in said court ... It shall thereupon proceed as an action in said court subject to all the provisions of law relating to actions brought therein . . ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . Until the commissioners have made an award, it is not a judicial proceeding, and the judge acts in an administrative capacity. . . . Hence rules applicable to judicial proceedings in a court are not controlling.””
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.