Chille v. Howell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 44 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellants urge that in this instance where recovery against Howell [judgment proof] is impossible or improbable that Chille’s [plaintiff] negligence should be compared to Grimstad [solvent] as a whole which would reduce Chille’s recovery by 5/25ths so as to permit a recovery of 80 percent of the amount awarded rather than 95 percent as ordered by the trial court. “The construction of the comparative negligence statute as announced in Walker v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., supra, has been the law since 1934; several of our cases have reaffirmed the rule based upon the ancient common-law concept of joint and several liability of joint tort-feasors. We are not persuaded it should be changed.” Chille, supra, 34 Wis.2d at 500 , 149 N.W.2d at 605 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 96 Wis. 2d 314 - Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp. · Hoerr v. Northfield Foundry and MacH. Co.

2. ““Contributory negligence; when bars recovery. Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in the proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co. · 47 Wis. 2d 120 - Vincent v. Pabst Brewing Co.

3. ““346.18 General rules of right of way. (1) General RULES AT INTERSECTIONS. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this section or in s. 346.19 or 346.20, when 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the operator of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right. The operator of any vehicle driving at an unlawful speed forfeits any right of way which he would otherwise have under this subsection. (3) Rule at intersection with through highway. The operator of a vehicle shall stop as required by s. 346.-46 before entering a through highway, and shall yield the right of way to other vehicles which have entered or are approaching the intersection upon the through highway.” “346.46 Vehicles to stop at stop signs. (1) Every operator of a vehicle approaching an official stop sign at an intersection shall cause such vehicle to stop before entering the intersection except when directed to proceed by a traffic officer or traffic control signal. “(2) Stops required by sub. (1) shall be made in the following manner: “(c) If there is neither a clearly marked stop line nor a marked or unmarked crosswalk at the intersection or if the operator cannot efficiently observe traffic on the intersecting roadway from the stop made at the stop line or crosswalk, he shall, before entering the intersection, stop his vehicle at such point as will enable him to efficiently observe the traffic on the intersecting roadway.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 90 Wis. 2d 275 - Leckwee v. Gibson