Withers v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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

1. ““Appellant is precluded from raising this issue on appeal for two reasons. First, he failed to request the giving of any additional instructions, and, second, he did not move for a new trial on the ground of error in instructions “In Grinley v. Eau Galle (1956), 274 Wis. 177, 179 , 79 N. W. (2d) 797 , this court has clarified the position of appellant who failed to request instruction: “ ‘The record does not disclose that such instructions were requested by the plaintiffs. Therefore, error cannot now be predicated on their omission. Where instructions are incomplete, and do not cover a point that ought to be covered, this court will not reverse unless a timely request for appropriate instructions has been made to the trial court. Madison Trust Co. v. Helleckson, 216 Wis. 443, 456 , 257 N. W. 691 ; Jorgenson v. Hillestad, 250 Wis. 592, 599 , 27 N. W. (2d) 709 ; Throm v. Koepke Sand & Gravel Co. 260 Wis. 479, 483 , 51 N. W. (2d) 49 .’ “If an alleged error is one, such as an instruction claimed to be erroneous because incomplete, which the trial court could correct by granting a new trial, such error is not reviewable as a matter of right unless appellant has first moved for a new trial bottomed on such error in the trial court. Wells v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. (1957), 274 Wis. 505, 518 , 80 N. W. (2d) 380 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 Wis. 2d 170 - Boller v. Cofrances