Rambaum v. Swisher’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc. (1990), Haderlie v. Sondgeroth (1993)
1 district · 22 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 Frey Ex Rel. Frey v. Snelgrove · Johnson v. Rogers · Kvanli v. Village of Watson · Shantz v. Richview, Inc. · Anunti v. Payette
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this ease, the settling parties mis-gauged what the jury’s verdict would be and O’Neill’s Bar paid “too much” for its release. This observation, however, is as idle as most hindsight pronouncements. Judged as of the time the settlement was made, weighing the risks as then understood, the settlement amount was “just right.” In accepting the settlement payment, the plaintiff accepted the likelihood of being under-compensated as well as being over-compensated. If the jury had determined the amount of the O’Neill’s Bar fair share at more than O’Neill paid for its release, the Croatian Club, as the nonsettling defendant, would have been relieved of the obligation of making up the difference. * * * [I]f subsequent events sometimes result in a so-called “windfall” for plaintiff, that result is acceptable within the context of the law’s strong policy to encourage settlement of disputes. * * * The nonsettling defendant, hoping the jury would provide a “windfall” which would work to its advantage, would also have a further reason for not settling its own liability exposure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. That the sale of alcohol was in violation of a provision of Minn.Stat. ch. 340A; 2. That the violation was substantially related to the purposes sought to be achieved by the [dram shop act]; 3. That the illegal sale was a cause of the intoxication; and 4. That the intoxication was a cause of the plaintiffs injuries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kunza v. Pantze“"The Civil Damages Act imposes dram shop liability for 'illegally selling' alcoholic beverages but does not define what is illegal. Does a liquor sale by a club licensed vendor to a person not a member or guest of the club constitute an 'illegal sale' under the Act? We answer yes."”
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.