90 Wis. 2d 158 - Hareng v. Blanke’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 163 Wis. 2d 439 - Zintek v. Perchik (1991), 115 Wis. 2d 272 - Burrows v. Follett & Leach, Inc. (1983)
29 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 73 Wis. 2d 524 - Roach v. Keane · 83 Wis. 2d 30 - May v. Skelley Oil Co. · 67 Wis. 2d 233 - Toulon v. Nagle · 35 Wis. 2d 282 - Seitz v. Seitz · 46 Wis. 2d 605 - Dahl v. K-MART
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Compromise and offers to compromise Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This section does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, proving accord and satisfaction, novation or release, or. proving an effort to compromise or obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A juror acknowledged that the re-reading was helpful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is argued by defendants that the evidence of a prior settlement between Dr. Bowden and [plaintiffs] was admissible to show prejudice on the part of [plaintiff] as a witness because she had a financial interest in playing down the negligence of Dr. Bowden and emphasizing that of [defendants]. We agree, and we conclude that evidence of a settlement can be used, as in this case, to show possible bias of a witness, although it cannot be used to prove liability or invalidity of a claim at issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Quirion v. Forcier
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.