Wolfe v. Harms’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Bartleman v. Humphrey (1969), 171 Wis. 2d 437 - Grotelueschen Ex Rel. Doherty v. American Family Mutual Insurance (1992)
2 federal appellate · 45 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 Claim of Dependents of Marks v. Gray · Robins Silk Manufacturing Co. v. Consolidated Piece Dye Works · Yeaman v. Storms · Girratono v. Kansas City Public Service Co. · Vietmeier v. Voss
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus, the additional circumstances of 119 feet of tire marks leading south from the truck are available for the jury’s consideration. Also available is the evidence of the ultimate resting place of the vehicles, the truck against an embankment and the Dodge to the right and forward of the truck. A jury could properly consider all these facts, and they were sufficient to make a sub-missible case on the issue of whether defendant negligently drove at an excessive speed and whether that was a proximate cause of the collision and resulting injures. Bramblett v. Harlow, supra, 75 S.W.2d 1 . c. 630 (7-9).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Your verdict must be for plaintiff Mae Hill if you believe: First, defendant either: failed to keep a careful lookout, or drove at an excessive speed, or defendant knew or by the use of the highest degree of care could have known that there was a reasonable likelihood of collision in time thereafter to have slackened his speed but defendant failed to do so, and Second, defendant’s conduct, in any one or more of the respects submitted in paragraph First, was negligent, and Third, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to plaintiff Mae Hill.” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Boling“... held in abeyance until the cause was finally disposed of as to the liability only of Harms and Kast, and then to enter judgment for the amount of the verdict in abeyance against all defendants finally held liable.”
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.