Prince v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Leigh Furniture and Carpet Co. v. Isom (1982), Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1991)
1 district · 23 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 Stevens v. Snow · 1 Utah 2d 175 - Taylor v. E. M. Royle Corp. · Cinquanta v. Burdett · 1 Utah 2d 362 - Wilson v. Oldroyd · 22 Utah 2d 356 - Memmott v. United States Fuel Company
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[GJeneral damages are those which, from the common sense and experience of mankind, would naturally be expected to result from that type of a wrong to any person so injured.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“They are: a punishment of the defendant for particularly grievous injury caused by conduct which is not only wrongful, but which is wilful and malicious so that it seems to one’s sense of justice that mere recompense for actual loss is inadequate and that the plaintiff should have added compensation; and that the defendant should suffer some additional penalty for that character of wrongful conduct; and also that such a verdict should serve as a wholesome warning to others not to engage in similar misdoings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If words ... are used in such a context or under such circumstances as they would reasonably be understood to come within the traditional requirement of libel or slander: that is, to hold a person up to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure him in his business or vocation, they are deemed actionable per se; and the law presumes that damages will be suffered therefrom.”
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.