Dunleavy v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson (1999), Paiz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1994)
6 district · 109 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 Marek v. Chesny · Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co. · Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgado · Scott v. Rizzo · Stokes v. Saltonstall
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As the risk of danger that should reasonably be foreseen increases, the amount of care required also increases. In deciding whether ordinary care has been used, the conduct in question must be considered in the light of all the surrounding circumstances. The duty owed — the exercise of ordinary care— thus remains constant, “while the conduct necessary to fulfill it varies with the circumstances.” Id. (citing Bober v. New Mexico State Fair, 111 N.M. 644, 649 , 808 P.2d 614, 619 (1991)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“At any time more than ten (10) days before the trial begins, [the defendant] may serve upon the [plaintiff] an offer to allow judgment to be taken against him ... with costs then accrued. If within ten (10) days after the service of the offer the [plaintiff] serves written notice that the offer is accepted, ... judgment may be entered---- An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn____ If the judgment finally obtained by the [plaintiff] is not more favorable than the offer, the [plaintiff] must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Drake v. Trujillo“We hold that UJI Civil 1617 is inconsistent with the philosophy of our Uniform Jury Instructions; that the sudden emergency doctrine underlying the instruction is unnecessary, potentially confusing to the jury, and conducive to overemphasizing one party’s theory of the case; and that, accordingly, UJI Civil 1617 should no longer be used in instructing the jury in a negligence case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Drake v. Trujillo
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.