Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 N.M. 20 - State v. Torres

State v. Torres’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

245
cited by 245 later decisions
7
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

4 district · 241 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 245 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson (1999), State v. Downey (2008)

4 district · 241 state decisions

13401999200020102020decided

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Washington v. Texas · Frye v. United States · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal

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

  1. “If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) whether a theory or technique 'can be (and has been) tested'; (2) 'whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication'; (3) 'the known [or] potential rate of error' in using a particular scientific technique 'and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation'; and (4) whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted in the particular scientific field.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “length of the requested delay, the likelihood that a delay would accomplish the movant's objectives, the existence of previous continuances in the same matter, the degree of inconvenience to the parties and the court, the legitimacy of the motives in requesting the delay, the fault of the movant in causing [the] need for the delay, and the prejudice to the movant in denying the motion.”
    4 later decisions 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.