Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 N.M. 536 - Meiboom v. Watson

Meiboom v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

141
cited by 141 later decisions
3
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

139 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Piano v. Premier Distributing Co. (2004), City of Sunland Park v. MacIas (2003)

139 state decisions

760200020102020decided

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 Ackermann v. United States · Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. · Montco, Inc. v. Barr · Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. v. North River Insurance · L. P. Steuart, Inc. v. Matthews

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

  1. “[T]he rules of civil procedure regarding involuntary dismissals have been substantially changed since the decision in King. Prior to the change, if a case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, a new complaint was required to be filed to place the matter back on the court’s docket. The new rules, however, allow for the reinstatement of a case that has been dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution upon a showing of good cause. Thus, a new complaint need not be filed in order to proceed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If we were to agree with the district court’s interpretation that King was in fact a Rule 1 — 060(B)(6) case, it would serve to obviate the underlying purposes of Rule 1 — 060(B)(6). It would render nonexistent the ability of a court’s equitable powers to grant relief from final judgement in Rule 1 — 060(B)(6) cases after the statute of limitations has run. 3”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[E]ven if the district court offered erroneous rationale for its decision, it will be affirmed if right for any reason.”
    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.