Shipman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 15 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . word precludes accuracy. Doctor Webster defines it as ‘an approximate judgment or opinion as to weight, magnitude, cost and the like; a calculation without measuring or weighing.’ . . .” Shipman v. State, 43 Wis. 381, 389 (1877).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Branting v. Salt Lake City · 91 Wis. 2d 702 - State v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.

2. ““They [the commissioners] might have rejected the plans submitted and called for others. They were made the jüdges of his [the superintendent’s] plans and of their sufficiency. The commissioners, not the architect, had to determine the plan. . . . They were the judges of the sufficiency of his superintendence, and could have dismissed him at pleasure. . . . But so far as the plans were equally intelligible to the commissioners and the plaintiff, . . . the commissioners assumed responsibility for the plans when they adopted them. And so far as defects of construction in the building were equally open to detection by the commissioners and the plaintiff, on the completion of the building, and so far as these pleadings disclose, the commissioners assumed responsibility for them when they accepted the building.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lower Baraboo River Drainage District v. Schirmer