Cornia v. Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Encon Utah, LLC v. Fluor Ames Kraemer, LLC (2009), B.R. v. West (2012)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 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 State v. Hamilton · Nelson v. Jacobsen · Ong International (U.S.A.) Inc. v. 11th Avenue Corp. · State v. Johnson · Canyon Country Store v. Bracey
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ damages are incomplete or cannot be calculated with mathematical aceu-racy, ... the amount of the damages must be ascertained and assessed by the trier of ... fact at the trial, and in such cases prejudgment interest is not allowed.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he jury heard conflicting testimony from experts regarding the cattle’s expected pregnancy rates, weight range, loss rates, and market prices. In addition, the jury heard divergent evidence regarding the calves’ expected gender, weight range, mortality rates, and market prices. Plaintiffs could not establish these elements as a matter of fact, and thus the jury was free to use its best judgment in ascertaining and assessing the damages.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A trial court's decision to grant or deny prejudgment interest presents a question of law which we review for correctness.”
4 later decisions 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.