62 Wis. 2d 698 - Samson v. Riesing’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably 197 Wis. 2d 365 - Weiss v. United Fire & Casualty Co. (1995), 122 Wis. 2d 503 - Stoll v. Adriansen (1984)
6 federal appellate · 29 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 35 Wis. 2d 691 - Zillmer v. Miglautsch · 10 Wis. 2d 323 - Betehia v. Cape Cod Corp. · 55 Wis. 2d 659 - Turtenwald v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · 62 Wis. 2d 64 - Tombal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · Edlebeck v. Hooten
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The standard for determining whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict was stated in Zillmer v. Miglautsch (1967), 35 Wis.2d 691, 699 , 151 N.W.2d 741 :”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is never enough for the plaintiff to prove merely that the plaintiff has been injured by the negligence of someone unidentified. Even though there is beyond all possible doubt negligence in the air, it is still necessary to bring it home to the defendant. `The purpose of this requirement is to link the defendant with the probability, already established, that the accident was negligently caused.' On this too the plaintiff has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence; and in any case where it is clear that it is at least equally probable that the negligence was that of another, the court must direct the jury that the plaintiff has not established a case." W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Law of Torts, supra, at 248. [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[v]icarious liability ... and joint venture are essentially doctrines that are applicable to a situation where the negligence of one party is proved and it is sought to hold another party liable.” The court further recognized that these doctrines are of jio assistance to a plaintiff”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kangas v. Perry
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.