Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 UT 37 - Gerbich v. Numed Inc.

Gerbich v. Numed Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2022

16 state decisions

1401999200020102020decided

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 State v. Pena · Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc. · Hardy v. Hardy · Turner v. Nelson · Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp.

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

  1. “has overreached the broad discretion granted it and thereby affected [the complaining party's] substantial rights.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it prevented the inspector from testifying as an expert based on the lateness of the designation and the fact that Numed's counsel did not have an opportunity to either prepare a cross-examination or call rebuttal witnesses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Upon such a showing, whether or not supported by additional affirmative factual evidence, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but 'must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”
    1 later decision 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.