20 Utah 2d 287 - Erickson v. Beardall’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably Warner v. Warner (In Re Warner) (1980), 436 F. Supp. 469 - In Re Smith (1977)
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 1 Utah 2d 281 - Fife v. Fife · 1 Utah 2d 34 - Callister v. Callister · 19 Utah 2d 378 - Stone v. Stone · Lyon v. Lyon
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We reaffirm and apply the principle of the Lyon case: that it is the duty of the court to look to substance rather than to form [of the divorce decree]. * * * * * * It is shown that the plaintiff’s means of support would have been inadequate without the provision of the decree that the defendant pay these obligations, and there is ample basis for the trial court’s finding that this requirement was for her support and maintenance. That conclusion is not defeated by the fact that it also has the coincidental effect of reimbursing the plaintiff for money that had been expended for the benefit of the family during the marriage. (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... it is the duty of the court to look to substance rather than to form. This is especially true where rights and responsibilities with respect to the family relationship are being dealt with. It is no less true here because this suit was initiated as a separate proceeding to enforce obligations of the divorce decree. . . . We give deference to the advantaged position and prerogatives of the trial judge as the finder of the facts; allow him considerable latitude of discretion as to the orders made; and we will not upset his judgment and substitute our own unless it clearly appears that he abused his prerogatives.”
2 later decisions 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.