Schindler v. Schindler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

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

1. ““In awarding alimony, appellate courts require the trial court to consider each of the following three factors: (1) the financial conditions and needs of the receiving spouse; (2) the ability of the receiving spouse to produce a sufficient income for him or herself; and (3) the ability of the responding spouse to provide support. If these three factors have been considered, we will not disturb the trial court’s alimony award unless such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion. The ultimate test of an alimony award is whether the party receiving alimony will be able to support him or herself ‘as nearly as possible at the standard of living ... enjoyed during the marriage.' ””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watson v. Watson · Baker v. Baker

2. “(a) Grounds. Subject to the provisions of Rule 61, a new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues, for any of the following causes ...: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. (2) Misconduct of the jury... . (3) Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. (4) Newly discovered evidence... . (5) Excessive or inadequate damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. (6) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or that it is against law. (7) Error in law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange

3. “To mount a successful attack on the trial court’s factual findings, an appellant must marshal all the evidence in support of the trial court’s findings and then demonstrate that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings, the evidence is insufficient to support the findings, Scharf v. BMG Corp., 700 P.2d 1068, 1070 (Utah 1985), or that its findings are otherwise clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous, when, even though there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” State v. Walker, 743 P.2d 191, 193 (Utah 1987).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watson v. Watson