Fick v. Wolfinger’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably Thompson v. Presbyterian Hospital, Inc. (1982), Cornfeldt v. Tongen (1977)
31 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 Springrose v. Willmore · Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. · McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. · Olberg v. Minneapolis Gas Company · Carroll v. Pratt
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Each party shall be entitled to two peremptory challenges * * *. The parties to the action shall be deemed two, all plaintiffs being one party, and all defendants being the other party, except, in case two or more defendants have adverse interests, the court, if satisfied that the due protection of their interests so requires, may allow the defendant or defendants on each side of the adverse interests not to exceed two peremptory challenges. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he numerical weight of authority in civil cases supports the rule that a judgment will not be reversed for error in allowing one or more peremptory challenges in excess of that provided by statute, unless the complaining party shows that he has exhausted his peremptory challenges and has suffered material injury from the action of the court, and that as a result thereof one or more objectionable jurors sat on the case, or for some other equally cogent reasons”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] fair trial for [the] plaintiff requires trial by an impartial jury, but the adverse verdict does not, without more, demonstrate that he was deprived of such a trial”
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.