35 Wis. 2d 282 - Seitz v. Seitz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Lastly, plaintiff complains of the award of $1,800 for medical expenses when the bills actually admitted into evidence with the amounts not crossed off aggregated $2,689. “With respect to medical expenses the jury is not required to return an award to compensate for the exact amount expended by the person seeking recovery. In Ghiardi, Personal Injury Damages in Wisconsin, at page 83, sec. 6.01, it is said: “ ‘Medical expenses are recoverable as part of compensatory damages to the extent of the amount reasonably and necessarily paid or incurred for . . . treatment.’ “The amount paid or liability incurred is merely evidence which can go to the jury to assist it in arriving at a reasonable award. “The trial court, in commenting on this element of damages in the memorandum decision, stated: “ ‘. . . the Court feels it has no power to interfere with the jury’s finding for it is apparently predicated on their belief that some of the medical expenses though proven to be the obligation of the plaintiff were not necessary.’ “We conclude the award for medical expenses was for the jury to determine.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 Wis. 2d 623 - Lautenschlager v. Hamburg

2. ““. . . However, it is difficult to perceive how this innocuous occurrence could in any manner have resulted in prejudice to plaintiff. Since Wegner v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., this court has stood by the rule that a communication with the jury is not sufficient to warrant a new trial in the absence of prejudice. The holding in Wegner was a departure from the earlier strict rule applied in Wiedenhaupt v. Hoelzel, that any improper communication with the jury, or a juror called for a new trial. “Because there is no showing of prejudice, the instant communication affords no basis for a new trial grounded on error.” 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 50 Wis. 2d 43 - Shelton v. State

3. ““. . . [I]t is difficult to perceive how this innocuous occurrence could in any manner have resulted in prejudice to plaintiff. Since Wegner v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. [(1952), 262 Wis. 402 , 55 N. W. 2d 420 , 41 A. L. R. 2d 279], this court has stood by the rule that a communication with the jury is not sufficient to warrant a new trial in the absence of prejudice. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Wis. 2d 549 - State v. White