Sampson v. Richins’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review (1989), ProMax Development Corp. v. Mattson (1997)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 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 Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance · Leigh Furniture and Carpet Co. v. Isom · Buehner Block Co. v. UWC ASSOCIATES · Armendariz v. Mora · Atkin Wright & Miles v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the record before us is incomplete, we are unable to review the evidence as a whole and must therefore presume that the verdict was supported by admissible and competent evidence.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Duran · Orem City v. West“Accordingly, because the entire record in this case is not before the court, we presume the trial court's findings are supported by competent and sufficient evidence, [h]owever, . . . the findings must themselves be sufficient to provide a sound foundation for the judgment, and conversely. . . any proper judgment can only be entered in accordance with the findings.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“and states: If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion. Neither the court nor the appellee is obligated to correct appellant's deficiencies in providing the relevant portions of the transeript. Utah R.App. P. ll(©)(@). ¶ 20 The comments to the rule explain the consequences of an appellant's submission of an incomplete record-”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Byrns · Hatch v. Davis
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.