Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 UTAPP 12 - Moon v. Moon

Moon v. Moon’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably 2008 UT App 11 - Stonehocker v. Stonehocker (2008), T.M. v. State (2001)

32 state decisions

2001999200020102020decided

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 · West Valley City v. Majestic Investment Co. · Jones v. Jones · Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n · Hall v. Hall

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

  1. “'When an appellant fails to meet the heavy burden of marshaling the evidence, we assume that the record supports the findings of the trial court.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “"The marshaling process is not unlike becoming the devil's advocate Counsel must extricate himself or herself from the client's shoes and fully assume the adversary's position. In order to properly discharge the duty of marshaling the evidence, the challenger must present, in fastidious order, every serap of competent evidence introduced at trial which supports the very findings the appellant resists. After constructing this magnificent array of supporting evidence, the challenger must ferret out a fatal flaw in the evidence. The gravity of this flaw must be sufficient to convince the appellate court that the court's finding resting upon the evidence is clearly erroneous."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “We interpret a divorce decree according to established rules of contract interpretation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.