Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 NM 233 - State v. Gurley

State v. Gurley’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
September 1989
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 1989

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

6019191920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · State v. Duluth Board of Trade

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

  1. “Every contract or combination between individuals, associations or corporations, having for its object or which shall operate to restrict trade or commerce or control the quantity, price or exchange of any article of manufacture or product of the soil or mine, is hereby declared to be illegal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In order for the contract to be violative of the statute it must have been one having for its object, or which would operate to restrict trade or commerce, or control the quantity, price, or exchange of the broom corn in question. In 19 R.C:L. p. 115, it is said: “It is generally agreed that if the necessary effect of the contract or combination is to stifle or directly or necessarily to restrict free competition or lessen it to an unreasonable extent, such contract or combination is under the ban of the law, whatever may have been the intention of the parties.” This we believe to be generally accepted as a correct statement of the law. [Id. 25 N.M. at 237 , 180 P. 288 .]”
    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.