Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 N.M. 763 - Walker v. Maruffi

Walker v. Maruffi’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015

21 state decisions

1601987199020002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg · Burnett v. Grattan

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

  1. “First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Second, ... “we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” Finally, we ... weigh[ ] the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction over federal questions arising either in state or federal proceedings, and by reason of the supremacy clause the decisions of that court on national law have binding effect on all lower courts whether state or federal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he federal interests in uniformity, certainty, and the minimization of unnecessary litigation,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.