Peay v. Peay’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2006
15 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 18 Utah 2d 74 - Drury v. Lunceford · 19 Utah 2d 346 - In Re Estate of Ratliff · 24 Utah 2d 211 - Utah State Employees Credit Union v. Riding · Utah Department of Business Regulation, Division of Public Utilities, Business Telephone Systems v. Public Service Commission · Peterson v. Peterson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[I]f the party ruled against were permitted to go beyond the rules'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'why should not the other party who is now ruled against be permitted to make a motion for re -re-consideration Id. (quoting Drury v. Lunceford, 18 Utah 2d 74, 76 , 415 P.2d 662, 663 (1966)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]e are unaware of any such motion under our rules .... We think the motion to reconsider the motion to vacate the judgment is abortive under the rules ....”
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.