53 Wis. 2d 71 - Baker v. McDel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Maryland Arms Ltd. Partnership v. Connell (2010), 92 Wis. 2d 17 - Dykstra v. Arthur G. McKee & Co. (1979)
26 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 43 Wis. 2d 36 - Young v. Anaconda American Brass Co. · 36 Wis. 2d 140 - Herchelroth v. Mahar · 37 Wis. 2d 70 - Algrem v. Nowlan · North Gate Corp. v. National Food Stores, Inc. · Widell v. Holy Trinity Catholic Church
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Finally, respondent contends that the indemnity agreement refers only to common law negligence, rather than the higher standard of care required by Wisconsin’s safe-place statute. We do not agree. The safe-place statute does not create a new cause of action [citation omitted] but merely establishes an increased standard of care, violation of which is negligence. [Citation omitted.] Violation of the safe-place statute would, therefore, be included under this indemnity agreement.” Baker v. McDel Corporation, 53 Wis.2d 71, 79 , 191 N.W.2d 846, 851 (1971).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]e cannot ignore punctuation when interpreting a contract”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is a settled rule in this state that [indemnity] agreements are to be broadly construed where they deal with the negligence of the indemnitor, but strictly construed where the indemnitee seeks to be indemnified for his own negligence.”
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.