89 Wis. 2d 227 - Olson v. Ratzel’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Hulsman v. Hemmeter Development Corp. (1982), 197 Wis. 2d 409 - Rockweit v. Senecal (1995)
2 federal appellate · 50 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 921 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 923 · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on Huddleston v. United States · Dippel v. Sciano · 74 Wis. 2d 526 - Coffey v. City of Milwaukee · 62 Wis. 2d 479 - A. E. Investment Corp. v. Link Builders, Inc. · 70 Wis. 2d 836 - Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[duty of care] question is closely related to the question of whether á defendant is not negligent as a matter of law, i.e., based op the facts presented, no properly instructed, reasonable jury could find the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““§ 286. When Standard of Conduct Defined by Legislation or Regulation Will Be Adopted “The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part “(a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and “(b) to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and “(c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and “(d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * the current Wisconsin approach is ‘where a statute is designed to protect a class of persons from a particular type of harm, a violation of the statute which results in that type of harm to someone in the protected class constitutes negligence per se.’ ” Olson v. Ratzel, 89 Wis.2d 227, 239 , 278 N.W.2d 238 (Ct.App. 1979), quoting Kalkopf v. Donald Sales and Mfg. Co., 33 Wis.2d 247 , 147 N.W.2d 277 (1967), quoting Meihost v. Meihost, 29 Wis.2d 537 , 139 N.W.2d 116 (1966).”
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.