Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 N.M. 119 - Richardson v. Glass

Richardson v. Glass’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Handa (1995), Brown v. Taylor (1995)

36 state decisions

200199220002010decided

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 Koenig v. Perez · George v. Caton · Guzman v. Gleason · Comer v. Hargrave · Matter of BDC

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

  1. “A memorandum in opposition to the motion shall contain a concise statement of the material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue does exist. Each fact in dispute shall be numbered, shall refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the opposing party relies, and shall state the number of the moving party’s fact that is disputed. All material facts set forth in the statement of the moving party shall be deemed admitted unless specifically controverted.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in this opinion. We rely on the terminology and analysis historically used by our courts when addressing respondeat superior and negligence in hiring and retention claims. We address each claim below. A. Respondeat Superior {10} On appeal, Lessard argues that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Fennell was acting within the scope of his employment, which would trigger liability for Coronado under the theory of respondeat superior. She frames the question posed as”
    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.