71 Wis. 2d 57 - McWilliams v. Guzinski’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2024
10 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 70 Wis. 2d 836 - Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski · 53 Cal. 2d 340 - King v. Lennen · 31 Wis. 2d 119 - Szafranski v. Radetzky · 46 Wis. 2d 337 - Copeland v. Larson · 61 Wis. 2d 554 - Goodson v. City of Racine
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if “ (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and “ (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and “ (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermed-dling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and “(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and “(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There are many dangers, such as those of fire and water, or of falling from a height, which under ordinary conditions may reasonably be expected to be fully understood and appreciated by any child of an age to be allowed at large. To such conditions the rule stated in this Section ordinarily has no application, in the absence of some other factor creating a special risk that the child will not avoid the danger, such as the fact that the condition is so hidden as not to be readily visible, or a distracting influence which makes it likely that the child will not discover or appreciate it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. BROWN v. DEMPSTER“This case arose prior to our holding in Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski, 70 Wis.2d 836 , 236 N.W.2d 1 (1975), and we make no comment here concerning the effect of that case, if any, on attractive nuisance doctrine.”
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.