Harding v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. ““temporarily remove [their] own prejudices and fully embrace the adversary’s position”; [they] must play the “devil’s advocate.” In so doing, appellants must present the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court and not attempt to construe the evidence in a light favorable to their case_In sum, to properly marshal the evidence the challenging party must demonstrate how the court found the facts from the evidence and then explain why those findings contradict the clear weight of the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 UT App 106 - State v. Maese · United Park City Mines Co. v. Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds

2. “To ascertain whether a new trial is warranted for failure to dismiss a prospective juror for cause, we apply a two-part test. First, we consider whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in failing to excuse the prospective juror for cause. Second, we assess whether the trial court’s failure to strike the prospective juror actually prejudiced the party seeking the new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Robertson

3. “[Where a party alleges a failure to marshal certain evidence and the party challenging the jury's verdict asserts that there was no marshaling obligation as to the evidence because it was irrelevant, the party challenging the verdict must affirmatively demonstrate that the evidence was irrelevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 UT App 331 - Taylor v. Taylor