Ulibarri v. Gee’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably In Re New Mexico Indirect Purchasers Microsoft Corp. (2006), Economy Rentals, Inc. v. Garcia (1991)
32 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 Fryar v. Johnsen · Shaeffer v. Kelton · Woodson v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Thompson Drilling, Inc. v. Romig · State Ex Rel. Conley Lott Nichols MacHinery Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In no event * * * may court comments from the bench be substituted for material facts appearing as findings in the decision. It is in this sense that SCRA 1986, 1 — 052(B)(1)(g) provides that findings and conclusions appearing outside the single document decision will be disregarded. Such comments may be utilized only as an aid in understanding a decision of the court which is ambiguous. Although we recognize that, without reference to the bench remarks of the trial court, the findings of fact and conclusions of law are in conflict, we are persuaded that [the disputed fact as found in the bench remarks] is well within the bounds of testimony * * * * The bench remarks make clear why the court concluded the adjustments were required. We do not believe a remand for correction of the findings would result in a different award. Judicial economy must be considered when we contemplate remand for a merely ministerial or pro forma act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he award of an attorney’s fee, like the award of other costs of litigation, is not the same question as the determination of reasonableness of a fee as between «the attorney and his client, or the actual expenses to be reimbursed the attorney by his client regardless of whether awarded under the cost bill.”
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.