State v. House’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. Homicide by vehicle is the killing of a human being in the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. B. Great bodily injury by vehicle is the injuring of a human being, to the extent defined in Section 30-1-12 NMSA 1978, in the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. C. Any person who commits homicide by vehicle or great bodily injury by vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or while under the influence of any drug or while violating Section 66-8-113 NMSA 1978 is guilty of a third degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978, provided that violation of speeding laws as set forth in the Motor Vehicle Code shall not per se be a basis for violation of Section 66-8-113 NMSA 1978. D. Any person who commits homicide by vehicle or great bodily injury by vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or while under the influence of any drug, as provided in Subsection C of this section, who has incurred a prior DWI conviction within ten years of the occurrence for which he is being sentenced under this section, shall have his basic sentence increased by two years for each prior DWI conviction. E. For the purposes of this section, “prior DWI conviction” means: (1) a prior conviction under Section 66-8-102 NMSA 1978; or (2) a prior conviction in New Mexico or any other jurisdiction, territory or possession of the United States when the criminal act is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. F. Any pers”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. House v. Hatch

2. “[Mr. House] captions his argument [regarding recusal] as a constitutional challenge to the procedure afforded under New Mexico law. However, he makes no substantive argument regarding the alleged insufficiency of our procedure, relying instead primarily upon recitation of general language pertaining to the need for impartial tribunals. He also appears to challenge the ruling below as an abuse of discretion. Nonetheless, he has not presented to this Court a discussion of the facts relevant to our review. He also fails to note that his motion has already been reviewed not only by the district court, but also by our Supreme Court — neither of which discerned any basis for recusal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. House v. Hatch

3. “.[T]he [law of the case] doctrine traditionally applies only where a matter has been specifically ruled upon in a prior and final appellate proceeding. . . . Neither this Court, nor our-Supreme Court, has passed upon any of the issues specifically presented in this appeal, and while it would have been preferable for [the djefendant to have brought these claims in his prior appeal, the doctrine of law of the case does not preclude our review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martinez