Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 N.M. 115 - State v. Costales

State v. Costales’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
4
states following
October 2006
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2006

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

5019331940195019601970198019902000decided

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 People v. Loper · State v. Wade · Colbert v. Journal Publishing Co. · State v. Bailey · State v. Clements

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. ““ * * * ‘No record was made of the incident or any exception taken, and the Court considered it quite harmless at the time. * * *' “The high character of the trial judge is an adequate guaranty against any conscious act of unfairness, but his suggestion that the absence of a record would be a sufficient answer to the point is potent in its persuasiveness of the soundness of the doctrine that the place for the judge is on the bench when he communicates with the jury, in order that there may be a record, and for the other good reasons pointed out in State v. Hunt, 26 N.M. 160 , 189 P. 1111, 1115 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * It is the rule in this jurisdiction that objection must be made to improper argument and a request made to take it from the consideration of the jury, but it has not heretofore, we believe, been held that the ground of the objection must be specified. We hold that the ground of the objection to alleged improper argument to the jury must be specified and made known to the court, so that the court may intelligently rule thereon, and that when this is not done the proposition is not properly reviewable here on appeal. * * *»”
    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.