Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 561 P2D 1080 - Pearson v. Pearson

Pearson v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2019

16 state decisions

8019771980199020002010decided

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 5 Utah 2d 79 - Wilson v. Wilson · 1 Utah 2d 34 - Callister v. Callister · 19 Utah 2d 378 - Stone v. Stone · Jankele v. Texas Co. · Klein v. Klein

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

  1. “should be respected and given great weight.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in regard to the matter of the sufficiency of findings of fact, a substantial compliance with Rule 52, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, is-sufficient, and findings of fact and conclusions of law will support a judgment, though they are very general, where they in most respects follow the allegation of the pleadings. Findings should be limited to the ultimate facts and if they ascertain ultimate facts, and sufficiently conform to the pleadings and the evidence to support the judgment, they will be regarded as sufficient, though not as full and as complete as might be desired.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[tlhe court need not necessarily abide by the terms of the litigant[s'] stipulations”
    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.