Goetzman v. Wichern’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Gustafson v. Benda (1983), Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education (1983)
4 federal appellate · 64 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 United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · 13 Cal. 3d 804 - Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co. · 280 So. 2d 431 - Hoffman v. Jones · 85 Ill. 2d 1 - Alvis v. Ribar · 163 W. Va. 332 - Bradley v. Appalachian Power 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining the sufficiency of an objection to preserve error, “the test is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.” Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974). The purpose is “to afford the trial judge an opportunity to catch exactly what is in counsel’s mind and thereby determine whether the objection possesses merit to an extent the instruction should be recast.” State v. Baskin, 220 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1974).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We hold that in all cases in which contributory negligence has previously been a complete defense, it is supplanted by the doctrine of comparative negligence. In such cases contributory negligence will not bar recovery but shall reduce it in the proportion that the contributory negligence bears to the total negligence that proximately caused the damages.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t would be strange if the legislature, by stepping in to modify the harshness of the common-law defense ... should be held to have preempted the field, freezing the development of the common law at that point, and disabling the courts from subsequently changing the doctrine in any other respect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Haafke v. Mitchell
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.