Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 N.M. 473 - Sanchez v. Homestake Mining Co.

Sanchez v. Homestake Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
1
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

112 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably Tallman v. ABF (Arkansas Best Freight) (1988), Las Cruces Professional Fire Fighters & International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces (1996)

112 state decisions

680198519902000decided

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 Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgado · Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company · Fryar v. Johnsen · Montano v. Saavedra · Krupiak v. Payton

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

  1. “In addition to the medical and hospital services provided in Section 52-1-49 NMSA 1978, the employee shall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services, including retraining or job placement, as may be necessary to restore him to suitable employment where he is unable to return to his former job. The court shall determine whether a disabled employee needs vocational rehabilitation services and shall cooperate with, and refer promptly all cases in need of such services to, the appropriate public or private agencies ... for such services____ The refusal of the employee to avail himself for rehabilitation ... shall not result in any forfeiture or diminution of any award made pursuant to the Workmen’s Compensation Act____ [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In reviewing the findings of fact of a trial court * * * this court is subject to the rule that such findings shall not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This court is bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the trial court’s findings, and to disregard all evidence unfavorable to that finding. It is for the trier of fact to weigh the testimony, determine the credibility of the witnesses, reconcile inconsistent statements of the witnesses, and determine where the truth lies. The appellate court may not reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.”
    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.