45 Wis. 2d 407 - Lorenz v. Wolff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““751.06 Discretionary reversal. In an appeal in the supreme court, if it appears from the record that the real controversy has not been fully tried, or that it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried, the court may reverse the judgment or order appealed from, regardless of whether the proper motion or objection appears in the record, and may direct the entry of the proper judgment or remit the case to the trial court for the entry of the proper judgment or for a new trial, and direct the making of such amendments in the pleadings and the adoption of such procedure in that court, not inconsistent with statutes or rules, as are necessary to accomplish the ends of justice.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Wis. 2d 264 - State v. Romero · 98 Wis. 2d 301 - Air Wisconsin, Inc. v. North Central Airlines, Inc.

2. ““Pertinent to what happened at the trial are the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as proposed by the American Bar Association, which, with modifications, have been adopted by this court, to be effective on January 1, 1970. Therein, under Disciplinary Rules referring to Trial Conduct appears the provisions of DR 7-106 (C) : “ Tn appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not: “‘(3) Assert his personal knowledge of the facts in issue, except when testifying as a witness. “‘(4) Assert his personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, as to the credibility of a witness, as to the culpability of a civil litigant, or as to the guilt or innocence of an accused; but he may argue, on his analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matters stated herein.’ 43 Wis. 2d lxiii . “The new rule, ... is, ... an amplification of Canon of Professional Ethics No. 19 of the American Bar Association, which at the time of trial was in effect for all Wisconsin lawyers. That canon provides: “ ‘When a lawyer is witness for his client, except as to merely formal matters, such as the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave the trial of the case to other counsel. Except when essential to the ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Wis. 2d 637 - Eisenberg v. Continental Casualty Co.

3. “circumstances of this trial prevented a fair trial of the factual issues of this case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Wis. 2d 264 - State v. Romero