Quintana v. Vigil’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Martinez v. Mundy (1956), Anderson v. Whipple (1951)
2 district · 36 state decisions
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 Young v. Vail · Pankey v. Ortiz · Cooper v. Otero · State v. Capital City Bank · Knabel v. Escudero
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Equity has an enlarged jurisdiction 'by virtue of our statute to try a suit to quiet title even though admittedly there is an adequate remedy at law * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * the defendants, Ramon F. Vigil and wife, claimed through the appellant, Jose S. Vigil, but had wholly failed to show in themselves any color of title whatever; and that the defendants Jose S. Vigil and wife, had failed to show possession of the real estate, under color of title, with the usual elements necessary to establish title by limitations, for ten years or more prior to the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. The conclusion of law which logically followed was adopted by the court to the effect that plaintiff owned said real estate in fee simple as against all defendants.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Quintana v. Vigil““We then pointed out that two distinct principles are involved in the question at issue, the first being that equity has no jurisdiction where there is a complete and adequate remedy at law, but that this doctrine in no manner.limits the power of the legislature to enlarge this jurisdiction to authorize the ■maintenance of suits to quiet title whether or not there is an adequate remedy at law. We held that it had done so by the amendment of our statute authorizing a suit to quiet title by a plaintiff whether in or out of possession. 1929 Comp.St. § 105— 2001. * * *” (Emphasis ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Archuleta v. Landers
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.