Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 UTAPP 134 - Cache County v. Beus

Cache County v. Beus’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

2 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2023

2 district · 10 state decisions

501999200020102020decided

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 Ong International (U.S.A.) Inc. v. 11th Avenue Corp. · Foundation Development Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc. · Dwiggins v. Morgan Jewelers · Pingree v. Continental Group of Utah, Inc. · Cooperman v. MacNeil

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

  1. “"(a) the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit which he reasonably expected; (b) the extent to which the injured party can be adequately compensated for the part of that benefit of which he will be deprived; (c) the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will suffer forfeiture; (d) the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will cure his failure, taking account of all the circumstances including any reasonable assurances; [and] (e) the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perform or to offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing,"”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “But a review of the opinion issued in Cache County I, along with the trial court's memorandum decision, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgment, demonstrates no such thing. In Cache County I, we remanded the case for a trial on the issue of substantial compliance alone, mandating the trial court to examine the facts”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[wle observe a general policy disfavoring forfeitures. The substantial compliance doctrine furthers that policy by allowing equity to intervene and rescue a lessee from forfeiture of a lease when the lessee has substantially complied with the lease in good faith.”
    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.