Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2010 UTAPP 294 - Hampton v. PROFESSIONAL TITLE SERVICES

Hampton v. PROFESSIONAL TITLE SERVICES’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Allen v. Friel · State v. Bishop · State v. Thomas · State v. Lafferty · 92 Ill. App. 3d 1087 - Williamson v. Opsahl

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

  1. “An adequately briefed argument contains the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. Implicitly, rule 24(a)(9) [of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure] requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority. A reviewing court is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research. Accordingly, we may refuse, sua sponte, to consider inadequately briefed issues.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A reviewing court 'is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.”
    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.