Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
19 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 2008 UT App 11 - Stonehocker v. Stonehocker · Encon Utah, LLC v. Fluor Ames Kraemer, LLC · Bakowski v. Mountain States Steel, Inc. · 1 Utah 2d 320 - Hardinge Co. v. Eimco Corp. · 2015 UT App 308 - Earhart v. Earhart
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As is our practice in cases where both parties share a last name, we refer to the parties by their first name with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“specific provisions ordinarily will be regarded as qualifying the meaning of broad general terms in relation to a particular subject.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“consider each contract provision in relation to all of the others, with a view toward giving effect to all and ignoring none.”
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.