Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 UT 24 - Spears v. Warr

Spears v. Warr’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
3
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Russell Packard Development, Inc. v. Carson (2005), Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing, LC (2009)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions

330200220102020decided

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 Winegar v. Froerer Corp. · West Valley City v. Majestic Investment Co. · Myers v. McDonald · Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Associates · 28 Utah 2d 261 - Bullfrog Marina, Inc. v. Lentz

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

  1. “the point at which a person reasonably should know that he or she has suffered a legal injury”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The applicability of a statute of limitations and the applicability of the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) in situations where the discovery rule is mandated by statute; (2) in situations where a plaintiff does not become aware of the cause of action because of the defendant's concealment or misleading conduct; and (8) in situations where the case presents exceptional cireumstances and the application of the general rule would be irrational or unjust, regardless of any showing that the defendant has prevented the discovery of the cause of action.”
    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.