Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 N.M. 393 - State v. Peppers

State v. Peppers’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Smith V. Secretary of New Mexico Department of Corrections (1995), State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Ruth Anne E. (1999)

2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

3201990200020102020decided

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 Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgado · State v. Linam · Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Guerra · State v. Haddenham

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

  1. “Any person released pending trial or appeal in any criminal action who willfully fails to appear before any court or judicial officer as required: A. is guilty of a fourth degree felony, if he was released in connection with a felony charge; or B. is guilty of a petty misdemeanor, if he was released in connection with a charge of a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “custody or restraint is, or will be, in violation of the constitution or laws of the State of New Mexico or of the United States; that the district court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence; that the sentence was illegal or in excess of the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of the Constitution or laws of New Mexico, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”
    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.