Knight v. Post’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2018
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 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 Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier · Davies v. Olson · 6 Utah 2d 226 - Buehner Block Company v. Glezos · Utschig v. McClone · AAA Fencing Co. v. Raintree Development & Energy Co.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, one must first exhaust his legal remedies before he may recover on the basis of the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Commercial Fixtures, the Utah Supreme Court defined inequitable cireum-stances as: '[tlhe mere fact that a third person benefits from a contract between two others does not make such third person liable in quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, or restitution. There must be some misleading act, request for services, or the like, to support such an action. Mere failure of performance by one of the contracting parties does not give rise to a right of restitution. ") (alteration and emphasis in original) (citation omitted). 118 The evidence accepted as true indicates that Heatsource claims a Bechtel Jacobs employee made a representation of payment, or at least a misleading statement regarding payment, to wit, "'the money truck [would] back[ ] up to the building'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) a benefit conferred on one person by another; (2) an appreciation or knowledge by the conferee of the benefit; (3) the acceptance or retention by the conferee of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the conferee to retain the benefit without payment of its value.”
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.