Espinosa v. Roswell Tower, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “Nuisance law in our state has largely evolved in the context of injunctive relief. See, e.g., State ex rel. N.M. Water Quality Control Comm’n v. City of Hobbs, 86 N.M. 444, 446 , 525 P.2d 371, 373 (1974) (negligent operation of sewer plant as public nuisance); Town of Clayton v. Mayfield, 82 N.M. 596 , 485 P.2d 352 (1971); Koeber v. Apex-Albuq Phoenix Exp., 72 N.M. 4 , 380 P.2d 14 (1963). Other jurisdictions have (1) determined that the state’s interest in its air, land, and water supports a nuisance claim for monetary damages, see Selma Pressure Treating Co. v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 22l Cal.App.3d 1601, 271 Cal.Rptr. 596, 605-06 (1990) (list of eases from around the country allowing such recovery), and (2) recognized the state’s right to seek punitive damages for common-law public nuisance based on the need for deterrence and the inadequacy of actual or nominal damages. See National Audubon Soc’y v. Department of Water, 869 F.2d 1196 , 1204 (9th Cir.1988) (state common-law nuisance particularly appropriate to air pollution); State ex rel. Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Ruddy, 592 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Mo.1980) (en bane) (where neither party could cite precedent to deny public authority’s right to recover punitive damages for common-law public nuisance, and where public policy furthered by recovery in cases of environmental degradation, award is at discretion of trial court); ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. New Mexico v. General Electric Co.