Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 N.M. 454 - State v. Varela

State v. Varela’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

204
cited by 204 later decisions
2
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 199 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 204 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Trujillo (2002), State v. Jacobs (2000)

2 federal appellate · 199 state decisions

11001999200020102020decided

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 Swafford v. State · State v. Rojo · State v. Sutphin · State v. Rowell · State v. Woodward

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

  1. “[I]t is essential that the ground or grounds of the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he wrong the legislature sought to remedy [in the first sentence of Section 30-3-8(A)] is any shooting at a dwelling or occupied dwelling [sic]. The next three sentences assign a level of punishment to three different fact patterns: a shooting at a dwelling or building that does not result in great bodily harm; one that results in injury to another person; and one that results in great bodily harm. See § 30-3-8. If we construe the first sentence according to its terms, as prohibiting any shooting at a dwelling or occupied building, then the circumstance in which the shooting results in death must be viewed as falling into one of the three levels of punishment. “[0]ur construction must not render the statute’s application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust.” To construe the statute as not including situations in which the victim dies would render Section 30-3-8’s application absurd.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Unless he is acting upon sufficient provocation, upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, a person who kills another human being without lawful justification or excuse commits murder in the second degree if in performing the acts which cause the death he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another.”
    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.