Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 UT 7 - Peirce v. Peirce

Peirce v. Peirce’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
4
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2025

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

90200020102020decided

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 Resource Management Co. v. Weston Ranch · Zions First National Bank, N.A. v. National American Title Insurance Co. · Ashton v. Ashton · R & R Energies v. Mother Earth Industries, Inc. · Romrell v. Zions First National Bank, N.A.

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

  1. “[T]he marshaling requirement applies only to challenges of factual findings, not to conclusions of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When there exists only the facade of a promise, i.e., a statement made in such vague or conditional terms that the person making it commits himself to nothing, the alleged 'promise' is said to be 'illusory.' An illusory promise neither binds the person making it, nor functions as consideration for a return promise.”) (Quotations and citations omitted.). As such, we refuse to read the Declaration in such a manner so as to produce what would manifestly be a legally indefensible result. See id. at ¶ 19 (holding that courts should”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[The tendency of the law is to avoid the finding that no contract arose due to an illusory promise when it appears that the parties intended a contract. Through a process of interpretation, in the absence of express restrictions, courts find implied promises to prevent a party's promise from being performable merely at the whim of the promisor.”
    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.