14 Utah 2d 86 - Intermountain Electronics, Inc. v. Tintic School District’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The fundamental question is whether the plaintiff asserts a valid basis for prohibiting the defendants from proceeding with the proposed project. To justify doing so, it is not sufficient that the plaintiff claim irreparable injury to its property, but there must be some actual or threatened violation of its rights by a wrongful act of the defendants. . . . “The electro-magnetic waves existing in the space above the earth which carry these TV signals are of such a nature that they obviously cannot be reduced to physical possession like real or personal property, or be put to an exclusive beneficial use like water. It would therefore be quite unrealistic to consider that property rights could vest as in those instances. The right to use this signal-carrying capacity cannot properly be regarded as so possessed, nor maintained, by any one person to the exclusion of others, unless it is affirmatively so prescribed or regulated by law. “In making the installation in the first place, the plaintiff must be deemed to have known that it could not arrogate to itself control of the atmosphere and prevent others who might desire to do so from also making use of it. . . (p. 88.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. KAKE-TV & RADIO, INC. v. City of Wichita