44 Wis. 2d 341 - Cadden v. Milwaukee County’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 40 Wis. 2d 627 - Zimmer v. Daun · 42 Wis. 2d 334 - Hardscrabble Ski Area, Inc. v. First National Bank of Rice Lake · 40 Wis. 2d 447 - Schuster v. Germantown Mutual Insurance · 42 Wis. 2d 429 - McConnell v. L. C. L. Transit Co. · Spoehr v. Mittelstadt
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““270.635 Summary judgments. (1) Summary judgment may be entered as provided in this section in any civil action or special proceeding. . . . “(2) The judgment may be entered in favor of either party, on motion, upon the affidavit of any person who has knowledge thereof, setting forth such evidentiary facts, including documents or copies thereof, as shall, if the motion is by the plaintiff, establish his cause of action sufficiently to entitle him to judgment; and, if on behalf of the defendant, such evidentiary facts, including documents or copies thereof, as shall show that his denials or defenses are sufficient to defeat the plaintiff, together with the affidavit of the moving party, either that he believes that there is no defense to the action or that the action has no merit (as the case may be) unless the opposing party shall, by affidavit or other proof, show facts which the court shall deem sufficient to entitle him to a trial. “(3) Upon motion by a defendant, if it shall appear to the court that the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment, it may be awarded to him even though he has not moved therefor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`. . . However, the general rule has variously been criticized, limited, or rejected, and there are well recognized exceptions thereto. One of them is that the contractor is liable where the work is a nuisance, or inherently, intrinsically, or abnormally dangerous. Another exception is that he is liable where the work done and turned over by him is so negligently defective as to be imminently or immediately dangerous to third persons, particularly where there is a continuous duty of inspection or the contractor after completion of the work, provided, in the case of a dangerous situation, the contractor knows, or should know, of the situation created by him, and the owner or contractee does not know of the dangerous condition or defect and would not discover it by reasonable inspection.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`It is a well-established general rule that, where the work of an independent contractor is completed and is turned over to, and accepted by, the owner, the contractor is not liable to third persons for damages or injuries subsequently suffered by reason of the condition of the work, the responsibility, if any, for maintaining or using the property in its defective condition shifting to the owner.'”
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.