2007 UT App 84 - Woods v. Zeluff’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2025
18 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 Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp. · 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant · Modjeski & Masters, Applicant, V · United States v. Bonds · State v. Dunn
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly but not necessarily an emotional one, such as bias, sympathy, hatred, contempt, retribution or horror.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“' "All effective evidence is prejudicial in the sense of being damaging to the party against whom it is offered.”
5 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.