State v. Patten’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A clear distinction must be made between ‘Jurisdiction’ and ‘Exercise of Jurisdiction.’ The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is- what makes up jurisdiction ; * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grace v. Oil Conservation Commission of New Mexico · Houston Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Falls

2. ““If one’s own right to an office is not such a right as equity recognizes (Guadalupe County Commissioners v. Anaya, supra), the right of a third person certainly cannot be subject-matter of a suit. The plaintiff can have no higher standing here than as a volunteer interested in seeing that the village cf Santa Rosa shall conduct its election according to law. If a threatened violation of the Constitution does not, of itself, afford a cause of action to the citizen (Asplund v. Hannett, 31 N.M. 641 , 249 P. 1074 , 58 A.L.R. 573 ), how can a violation of statute afford one. No civil or property right of the plaintiff is here threatened with irreparable, or any, injury. His right to vote is not endangered. Of course, usurpation of power will always affect the citizen with a sense of outrage, but unless it affects his civil or property rights, his remedy is political, not legal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Olson v. Grilly

3. “. The appellees having disobeyed the injunction, cannot now claim that the injunction decree was erroneous. The judgment of a court having jurisdiction is to be obeyed, no matter how clearly it may be merely erroneous. The method of correcting error is by appeal, and not by disobedience. A party proceeded against for disobedience to an order or judgment is never allowed to allege as a defense for his misconduct that the court erred in its judgment. He must go further, and make out that in point of law there was no order and no disobedience by showing that the court had no right to judge between the parties upon the subject. [ 41 N.M. at 402 , 69 P.2d at 935 .] [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Royal International Optical Co. v. Texas State Optical Co.