Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 UT 82 - Faust v. KAI Technologies, Inc.

Faust v. KAI Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2020

11 state decisions

80200020102020decided

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 Valcarce v. Fitzgerald · City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Peters · Stewart v. Utah Public Service Commission · Smith v. Batchelor · Baldwin v. Burton

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. “unless authorized by statute or contract.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is not enough that [defendant] did not promptly pay ... the amounts it acknowledged were owing in the settlement letter or that [defendant] may have acted in bad faith at times in the settlement negotiations. [Section 78-27-56(1)] simply does not extend to such conduct.”); see also Morganroth & Morganroth v. DeLorean, 213 F.3d 1301, 1318 (10th Cir.2000) (”
    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.