Mountain Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Gifford’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Simeon v. T. Smith & Son, Inc. (1988), Elder v. Orluck (1986)
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 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 Bielski v. Schulze · 95 Wis. 2d 461 - Reiter v. Dyken · Wetherbee v. Matowitz · 96 Wis. 2d 314 - Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp. · Walton v. Tull
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon the making of the finding of fact or the return of a special verdict, as is required by subsection (2) of this section, the court shall reduce the amount of the verdict in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage, or death recovery is made; but, if the said proportion is equal to or greater than the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, then, in such event, the court shall enter a judgment for the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“When there is a disproportion of fault among joint tortfeasors, the relative degrees of fault of the joint tortfeasors shall be used in determining their pro rata shares solely for the purpose of determining their rights of contribution among themselves, each remaining severally liable to the injured person for the whole injury as at common law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The comparative negligence statute was intended to ameliorate the harshness of the common law rule of contributory negligence as a bar to any recovery and to apportion damages more equitably among those who cause the losses. [Cites omitted.] 22”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.