Ernst v. Greenwald’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably 71 Wis. 2d 17 - Household Utilities, Inc. v. Andrews Co. (1976), 61 Wis. 2d 60 - Jagmin v. Simonds Abrasive Co. (1973)
3 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 Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission · Zenner v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. · Brown v. Haertel · Cameron v. Union Automobile Insurance · Reichert v. Rex Accessories 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the credible evidence, the reviewing court must accept the one reached by the fact finder.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The plaintiff, however, has the burden of proof; and in the event that there is a failure of proof, as we conclude there exists in this case, the verdict can only be based on speculation and, therefore, is not entitled to the application of the rules set out above. We have stated: “ ‘. . . the degree of proof required must be such as will remove the ultimate facts to be found by the jury from the field of speculation and conjecture.’ Reichert v. Rex Accessories Co. (1938), 228 Wis. 425, 439 , 279 N.W. 645 . “We stated in Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1933), 211 Wis. 326, 331 , 248 N.W. 140 : “ ‘It will not do to reach a conclusion in favor of the party on whom the burden of proof rests by merely theorizing and conjecturing. There must at least be sufficient evidence to remove the question from the realm of conjecture.’ ” Id. at 773.”
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.