74 Wis. 2d 239 - Radue v. Dill’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 116 Wis. 2d 166 - Collins v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1984), 114 Wis. 2d 471 - Segall v. Hurwitz (1983)
6 federal appellate · 34 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 Andrew Aikens v. State of Wisconsin No 3 Albert Huegin · State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin · 9 Wis. 2d 487 - Mendelson v. Blatz Brewing Co. · 73 Wash. 2d 434 - W. G. Platts, Inc. v. Platts · 64 Wis. 2d 747 - Bergman v. Hupy
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n a civil action for damages for an executed conspiracy, the gist of the action is the damages.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Injury to business; restraint of will. Any 2 or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of wilfully or maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever, or for the purpose of maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The instant case ... does not fall within [the exception].... [T]he only acts complained of are privileged acts of giving false information, and while the plaintiff contends that these acts are only a part of the entire transaction, there is nothing alleged to show any other parts.”
2 later decisions 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.