Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 N.M. 629 - State v. Shafer

State v. Shafer’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably State v. Wilson (1994), State v. Copeland (1986)

3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

24019851990200020102020decided

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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · McGeehan v. Bunch · Sells v. State · State v. Ramirez · Barnett v. Malley

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

  1. ““Defendants Shafer and [H.D.] Berry, along with S. Stewart Shelton, incorporated SBS Development, Inc., a Texas corporation. The corporation sought to develop and sell corporate securities allegedly to develop a perpetual motion machine which would generate electricity. Texas counsel assisted in the incorporation. Defendants testified that it was their understanding, following consultation with an attorney in Texas, that their actions would not constitute violations of the New Mexico criminal or securities laws if all of the sales of the corporate stock of SBS took place in Texas or if the stock qualified for exemptions. Defendants stated that all of the transactions involving sales of corporate stock were set up so that investors’ checks would be sent to Texas and the stock would be issued in Texas.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““This argument ... was not raised in the trial court. A party objecting to an instruction has the burden to provide a record sufficient to demonstrate reversible error in refusing the instruction. Moreover, the argument is without merit. We find no constitutional infirmity in the statute.””
    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.