Hess v. Canberra Development Co., LC’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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

1. “To satisfy our adequate briefing requirement, a party's brief must contain meaningful legal analysis. Specifically, [a] brief must go beyond providing conclusory statements and fully identify, analyze, and cite its legal arguments.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. P.C. v. State · State v. Bingham

2. “repeatedly warned that [the appellate courts] will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed, and that [we] are not a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. P.C. v. State · 2011 UT App 203 - American Fork City v. Smith

3. “[A] party's brief must contain meaningful legal analysis. Specifically, [a] brief must go beyond providing conclu-sory statements and fully identify, analyze, and cite its legal arguments, Meaningful analysis requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nebeker v. Summit County · 2018 UT App 155 - Wilson v. Educators Mutual Insurance