Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 N.M. 11 - Higgins v. Cauhape

Higgins v. Cauhape’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
April 1984
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 1984

24 state decisions

801927193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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

  1. ““Appellant contends that, having so found, the court erred in giving judgment for the full amount of the balance. The trouble with this position is twofold: Appellant did not plead in mitigation ; nor did he produce any competent 'evidence tending to show what amount, if any, appellee, by reasonable effort, might have realized from the grass.”'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * *. The court was bound to look to appellant’s express assent. It could not regard his secret or undisclosed intent. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.