Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 N.M. 327 - Mendoza v. Mendoza

Mendoza v. Mendoza’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2011

20 state decisions

801985199020002010decided

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 Parks v. Parks · Nichols v. Nichols · Zarges v. Zarges · Benavidez v. Benavidez · Koppenhaver v. Koppenhaver

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

  1. “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “After the expiration of the time within which to appeal a [divorce decree], allocating responsibility for community debts, and declaring the interests of the parties in the property acquired during marriage, the court in the original proceeding loses jurisdiction to modify the decree except under the provisions of Rule 60(b)[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances.' Dyer v. Pacheco, 98 N.M. 670 , 651 P.2d 1314 (Ct.App.1982). Exceptional circumstances means facts or things out of the ordinary bearing upon a central fact. Id.”
    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.