77 Wis. 2d 120 - Schaefer v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably 106 Wis. 2d 636 - Denny v. Mertz (1982), 98 Wis. 2d 130 - Prahl v. Brosamle (1980)
2 federal appellate · 20 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 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts · Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. · 21 Wis. 2d 349 - Alsteen v. Gehl · 62 Wis. 2d 295 - Slawek v. Stroh
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Defamation has been defined as: “ ‘ “. . . that which tends to injure ‘reputation’ in the popular sense; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held, or to excité adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him.” Prosser, supra, page 756. “‘In Schofield v. Milwaukee Free Press Co. (1905), 126 Wis. 81, 85 , 105 N.W. 227 , we held that for a newspaper article to be libelous it “. . . need only tend to degrade or disgrace the plaintiff generally or to subject him to public distrust, ridicule, or contempt in the community. . . .” “ ‘The Restatement [Torts], supra, page 140, sec. 559, provides that: “ ‘ “A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.” ’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is the function of the court as a matter of law to determine whether a communication is capable of a defamatory meaning.”
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.