Montoya v. Torres’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Weidler v. Big J Enterprises, Inc. (1997), Doughty v. Morris (1994)
2 district · 41 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 Duke City Lumber Company, Inc. v. Terrel · Galvan v. Miller · Northern Pueblos Enterprises. v. Montgomery · Jewell v. Seidenberg · Brown v. Cobb
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) old age and weakened physical or mental condition of [the] testator; (2) lack of consideration for the bequest; (3) unnatural or unjust disposition of the property; (4) participation of [the] beneficiary in procuring the gift; (5) domination or control over the donor by a beneficiary; and (6) secrecy, concealment, or failure to disclose the gift by a beneficiary.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is immaterial whether undue influence is exercised directly or indirectly. Brown v. Cobb, 58 N.M. 169 , 172, 204 P.2d 264, 266 (1949). In determining whether undue influence is present, a central focus is on the means used and the effect upon the donor. See McElhinney v. Kelly, 67 N.M. 399, 404 , 356 P.2d 113, 116 (1960) (“It is not the nature and extent of the influence, but its effect upon the mind of the testator which determines whether it is undue influence.”) (quoting 1 William J. Bowe & Douglas H. Parker, Page on Wills § 15.6 at 724); In re Estate of Gonzales, 108 N.M. at 586, 775 P.2d at 1303 (ultimate issue is effect of influence on donor). The underlying theory of the doctrine is that the donor is induced by various means to execute an instrument that, in reality, is the will of another substituted for that of the donor. In re Will of Ferrill, 97 N.M. [383] at 398, 640 P.2d [489] at 504 (Sutin, J., specially concurring). We specifically reject the contention that a beneficiary must be the one who exerts the undue influence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Presumptions imposing burden of proof, (a) General Rule. A presumption established to implement a public policy other than, or in addition to, facilitating the determination of the particular action in which the presumption is applied imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proof.”
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.