A general existence theorem is proved :

1933 : W. Grunwald, *Ein allgemeines Existenztheorem für algebraische Zahlkörper*, J. reine angew. Math. 169 (1933), 103–107.

and reproved :

1942: G. Whaples, *Non-analytic class field theory and Grünwald's theorem*.
Duke Math. J. 9, (1942). 455–473.

A counter-example is found :

1948 : S. Wang, *A counter-example to Grunwald's theorem*, Ann. Math. 49 (1948), 1008–1009.

and the theorem is corrected :

1950 : S. Wang, *On Grunwald's theorem*, Ann. Math. 51 (1950), 471–484.

twice in the same year :

---- : H. Hasse, *Zum Existenzsatz von Grunwald in der Klassenkörpertheorie*, J. reine angew. Math. 188 (1950), 40–64.

A quarter of a century later, a simpler proof is given :

1974: J. Neukirch, *Eine Bemerkung zum Existenzsatz von Grunwald-Hasse-Wang*, J. Reine Angew. Math. 268/269 (1974), 315–317.

but more than half a century later, corrections to the corrections are required :

2007 : W-D. Geyer & C. Jensen, *Embeddability of quadratic extensions in cyclic extensions*.
Forum Math. 19 (2007), no. 4, 707–725.

2011 : P. Morton, *A correction to Hasse's version of the Grunwald-Hasse-Wang theorem*.
J. Reine Angew. Math. 659 (2011), 169–174.

**Addendum** (2013/05/18)

I'm afraid the above list of errors and corrections might look a bit negative, so let me add a positive note (which will also save you 30,00 € or $42.00 by not having to read it here) :

In 1933, van der Waerden asked in the Jahresbericht : Which quadratic fields can be embedded in cyclic quartic fields ? Solutions were provided by four people, among them Hasse, who generalised the problem to : Under which conditions can a degree-$l$ ($l$ prime) cyclic extension $K_1$ of a number field $K$ be embedded into a degree-$l^n$ cyclic extension $K_n$ of $K$ ?

A. Scholz sent in a "solution" to this problem in 1935 which essentially claimed that the obstructions are purely local in nature. But Hans Richter, a doctoral student of van der Waerden, knew already that there is an exception when $l=2$, so a Scholtz-Richter correction to Scholz's paper was required. In a sense, Richter anticipated not only Wang's counterexample to Grunwald's theorem but also its solution, without mentioning it explicitly as such.