Wetering v. Eisele’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Gates v. Richardson (1986), Billis v. State (1990)
1 federal appellate · 24 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 Asay v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. · Voss v. Ralston · Brittain v. Booth · Lo Sasso v. Braun · DeHerrera v. Herrera
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.
“to be construed in harmony with existing law, and as part of an overall and uniform system of jurisprudence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The only proper way to effectuate [the intent of the legislature] is to treat the proceeds of the judgment [in a wrongful death action] as being subject to administration as part of the probate estate, but with special rules as to distribution. This is clearly a different result than that which pertained prior to 1973 [when the wrongful death statute was amended] in which the judgment in a wrongful death action did not become a part of the decedent’s estate and was not subject to debts or administration. DeHerrera v. Herrera, supra. * * * We further must assume that the legislature did not intend futile acts and that its amendment of the statute indicated some change in the existing law was intended. DeHerrera v. Herrera, supra.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e hold that in adopting § l-38-102(c), W.S.1977 (Cum.Supp. 1983), the legislature did not intend to change the persons for whose benefit an action in wrongful death could be maintained. Prior to the adoption of the statute in 1973 the decedent’s heirs at law in accordance with the intestacy statutes were the intended beneficiaries of a wrongful death action. Section 1-1066, W.S.1957; Booth v. Hackney, supra; [ 516 P.2d 180 (Wyo.1973) ] Muir v. Haggerty, 77 Wyo. 280 , 314 P.2d 948 (1957); Coliseum Motor Co. v. Hester, supra, [ 43 Wyo. 298 ] 3 P.2d [105] at 112 [1931]; and Tuttle v. Short, supra [ 42 Wyo. 1 , 288 P. 524 (1930)]. Since no provision which has the effect of adjusting that rule can be found in the statute, the reference to every person for whose benefit such action is brought must continue to invoke the intestacy provisions of the probate code. The applicable provision in this instance is found in § 2-4-101, W.S.1977 (Cum. Supp.1983), as follows: “(c) Except in cases above enumerated, the estate of any intestate shall descend and be distributed as follows: * * * * * * “(ii) If there are no children, nor their descendents, then to his father, mother, brothers and sisters, and to the descendents of brothers and sisters who are dead, the descendents collectively taking the share which their parents would have taken if living, in equal parts.””
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.