Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 N.M. 507 - Schlieter v. Carlos

Schlieter v. Carlos’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
6
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

26 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably 22 Cal. 4th 352 - L.A. All. for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000), Canal Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1990)

26 district · 57 state decisions

34019891990200020102020decided

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 Richardson Ex Rel. Estate of Richardson v. Carnegie Library Restaurant, Inc. · Huey v. Lente · Wells v. County of Valencia · Atencio v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF PENASCO, ETC. · Anchondo v. Corrections Department

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

  1. “To date, we by and large have limited our acceptance of certifications prior to judgment to those cases in which there is no dispute over the factual predicates to the Court’s determination of the questions certified, and our answer either disposes of the entire case or controversy, or disposes of a pivotal issue that defines the future course of the case.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is an enduring principle of constitutional jurisprudence that courts will avoid deciding constitutional questions unless required to do so.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “1. Certification can only be invoked by a federal court by a written request; and 2. The certification request must contain: a. the complete style of the case, including attorneys’ names and addresses; b. the question of law to be answered; and c. either a statement by the certifying court of the facts relevant to the question or a stipulation of facts by the parties and approved by the certifying court.”
    2 later decisions 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.