2002 UT App 189 - Neely v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2025
11 state decisions
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 Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange · West Valley City v. Majestic Investment Co. · State v. Brown · Mahmood v. Ross · Dixon v. Stewart
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he marshaling concept does not reflect a desire to merely have pertinent excerpts from the record readily available to a reviewing court. The marshaling process is not unlike becoming the devil’s advocate. Counsel must extricate himself or herself from the client’s shoes and fully assume the adversary’s position. In order to properly discharge the duty of marshaling the evidence, the challenger must present, in comprehensive and fastidious order, every scrap of competent evidence introduced at trial which supports the very findings the appellant resists. After constructing this magnificent array of supporting evidence, the challenger must ferret out a fatal flaw in the evidence. The gravity of this flaw must be sufficient to convince the appellate court that the court’s finding resting upon the evidence is clearly erroneous.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“On appeal, we review the record facts in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict and recite the facts accordingly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[when an appellant challenges a trial court's ruling concerning either a motion for a directed verdict, or a motion for additur or new trial, the appellant is obligated to first 'marshal the evidence in support of the verdict and then demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.”
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.