Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2011 UTAPP 113 - Peterson v. Jackson

Peterson v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

1 district · 7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brigham City v. Stuart · Ullman v. Commissioner · State v. Walker · Jau-Fei Chen v. Stewart · Ullman v. Commissioner

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

  1. “The correction contemplated by rule 60(a) must be undertaken for the purpose of reflecting the actual intention of the court and parties. [It] is not intended to correct errors of a substantial nature, particularly where the claim of error is unilateral.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “was made in rendering the judgment or in recording the judgment as rendered.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[the trial court's award of prejudgment interest, and the amount thereof, present[ ] a question of law which we review for correctness.”
    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.