Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 UT 95 - Kessler v. Mortenson

Kessler v. Mortenson’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2026

7 state decisions

30200020102020decided

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 Rowland v. Christian · Mounsey v. Ellard · 328 So. 2d 367 - Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc. · Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich · Nelson v. Freeland

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

  1. “[w]here ... the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proving the underlying legal theory at trial, the moving party may satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment by showing that 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any [show] that there is no genuine issue of material fact' and that '[u]pon such a showing, whether or not supported by additional affirmative factual evidence, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Recovery [under the attractive nuisance doctrine] can only be had when the conditions of the rule are met. Indeed, the elements set forth in section 339 of the Second Restatement of Torts must be satisfied in order for the rule to be applicable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children”
    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.