green
Positive treatment
Issue: antitrust claimWI ↗
Issue: filed rate doctrineMN ↗
Issue: filed rate doctrineWI ↗
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1911 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1911
1968
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co.
In 2007, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has recognized the filed rate doctrine since 1911, see City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc & N. Traction Co., 145 Wis. 13 , 129 N.W. 925, 927 (1911), confronted a case similar to the one before us.
discussed
Cited "see"
Prentice v. Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota
(2×)
See City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc & Northern Traction Co., 145 Wis. 13 , 129 N.W. 925 (1911); Kilbourn City v. Southern Wisconsin Power Co., 149 Wis. 168 , 135 N.W. 499 (1912); Oconto Electric Co. v. Peoples Land & Mfg.
cited
Cited "see"
State ex rel. Triay v. Burr
See City of Manitowoc v. Manitowoc & Northern Traction Co. 145 Wis. 13 , 129 N. W.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. D. A. KRAMER
v.
A. K. KIEFER as County Auditor of McHenry County, North Dakota
v.
A. K. KIEFER as County Auditor of McHenry County, North Dakota
North Dakota Supreme Court.
Oct 21, 1910.
Published
Per Curiam.
Following the recent decision of this court in State-
Dorval v. Hamilton, 20 N. D. 592, 129 N. W. 916, leads to a reversal of the order appealed from. Some of the questions raised in. the case at bar are identical with those decided in State v. Hamilton. Others are rendered immaterial by that decision and hence need not be noticed.
Order reversed.