Soderbeck v. Burnett County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Wisconsin Supreme Court has determined that the sheriff "represents the sovereignty of the State" and is "accountable only to the sovereign. . . ." Although we might question the Wisconsin Supreme Court's classification of the county sheriff as an officer of the state, that court's determination based as it is on an interpretation of the Wisconsin Constitution is not subject to revision by . . . [others than the Wisconsin Supreme Court].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Opinion No. Oag 30-90, (1990) · 35 F. Supp. 2d 710 - Aleman v. Milwaukee County

2. “Since we expressly remanded this case for a consideration of whether the Burnett County Law Enforcement Committee was hable to Soderbeck the district court did not err in refusing to allow Soderbeck to introduce evidence of Sheriff Kellberg’s status as a county policy-maker and in refusing to grant Soderbeck’s motion for summary judgment. If the district court had allowed Soderbeck to introduce evidence of Kellberg’s status as a county policy-maker, the trial court’s decision would have violated the doctrine of the law of the case since it would have allowed the court to consider a matter that had already been decided by this court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 13 F. Supp. 2d 870 - Abraham v. Piechowski

3. ““The ‘law of the case’ rule is based on the salutary and sound public policy that litigation should come to an end, it is predicated on the premise that ‘there would be no end to a suit if every obstinate litigant could, by repeated appeals, compel a court to listen to criticisms on their opinions or speculative chances from changes in its members,’ and that it would be impossible for an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently and expeditiously ‘if a question, once considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal’ thereof.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walsh v. Mellas