2007 UT App 101 - Moore v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
4 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2026
4 district · 14 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 Dixie State Bank v. Bracken · McDonald v. Mianecki · State v. Hamilton · State v. Pinder · Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Because the facts required to prove both negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment are similar, and the only difference between the two claims is a lesser mental state for negligent misrepresentation, we conclude that the [defendants] can be liable for only one or the other regarding each defect at issue in this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[elalculation of reasonable attorney fees is in the sound discretion of the district court, and will not be overturned in the absence of a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An action by or against a provider based in contract or warranty shall be commenced within six years of the date of completion of the improvement or abandonment of construction.”
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.