Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 Wis. 2d 461 - Reiter v. Dyken

95 Wis. 2d 461 - Reiter v. Dyken’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
11
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 97 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co. (1984), 102 Wis. 2d 539 - Eberhardy v. Circuit Court for Wood County (1981)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 11 states

4701980199020002010decided

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 Holytz v. City of Milwaukee · 70 Wis. 2d 836 - Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski · 72 Wis. 2d 26 - Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations · Walker v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. · 38 Wis. 2d 626 - Zimmerman v. Wisconsin Electric Power 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To change from the present rule to one in which a plaintiff would be allowed to recover against a person less negligent than himself would have significant ramifications throughout the tort system of allocating losses as it now exists in this state. Specifically, such a change would raise important questions about the extent of a less negligent defendant's liability and the operation of the rules of joint and several liability, contribution, setoff and release. Indeed, unless accompanying changes are made in these related areas of law, the change requested by plaintiff may very well create far more serious problems than it is intended to resolve. For this reason we think plaintiff's request would be better addressed to the legislature. "That body is better equipped to consider the change advocated by plaintiff together with the corresponding changes in other areas of the law that would be necessary to insure a fair and even system of apportioning liability for negligently caused injuries. It is more capable of fashioning and implementing the kind of comprehensive solution that the multiple tortfeasor situation requires.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Having authoritatively construed a statute, well-established principles of judicial decision-making require that the chosen construction be maintained unless and until the legislature either amends or repeals the statute.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““ ‘. . . The legislature is presumed to know that in absence of its changing the law, the construction put upon it by the courts will remain unchanged; for the principle of the courts’ decisions — legislative intent — is a historical fact and, hence, unchanging.’ ” Id. citing Zimmerman v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 38 Wis. 2d 626, 634 , 157 N.W.2d 648 (1968).”
    2 later decisions 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.