Helm v. Wismar’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 district · 18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Claim of Dependents of Marks v. Gray · Robins Silk Manufacturing Co. v. Consolidated Piece Dye Works · Oates v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America · Hudson v. Carr · Brunk v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is because the plaintiff has already fully litigated his damages for these injuries and collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of the damages issue. [The employer], which did not have an opportunity to defend in the first case, may offer its defense on remand. This is because collateral estoppel does not apply to [the employer]; it did not have a full and fair opportunity to defend itself in the first trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A judgment for the injured person, even though favorable to him on the question of liability, is adverse to him insofar as it determines that his damages did not exceed those awarded. It is therefore ordinarily conclusive as a ceiling on the damages that may be recovered in the second action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Compere
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.