Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 47 N.M. 140 - In Re Santillanes

In Re Santillanes’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
13
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 99 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Swafford v. State (1991), Pee v. United States (1959)

10 federal appellate · 99 state decisions — followed in 13 states

40019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Norton v. Shelby County · Norton v. Shelby Co State of Tennessee · State of Ohio Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park Dist for Summit County State of Ohio Wadsworth · Luckenbach Co v. United States · Asplund v. Alarid

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

  1. “"There are thus presented for consideration and decision separate challenges to the existence of the juvenile court itself which, if either be of the effect claimed, will result in a declaration of nullity, all because of the ineligibility of the judge selected to preside over it. And the challenges come, not in a direct proceeding by the state to test, on the grounds urged, the judges' right to sit, but rather from a private suitor in a collateral proceeding having for its primary aim his discharge from a claimed illegal detention, the declaration of nullity to be merely an incidental means of accomplishing the primary end sought."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"* * * Suffice it to say, these cases plainly hold it to be the prerogative of the state alone, moving in its sovereign capacity, not that of the private suitor, to initiate and conduct to judgment proceedings fraught with such fateful and weighty consequences as, in the case at bar, for instance, would attend a declaration that a court which has functioned for nearly a quarter of a century, never had any existence at all."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “original jurisdiction in all matters and causes not excepted by this constitution, and such jurisdiction of special cases and proceedings as may be conferred by law. * * *”
    2 later decisions 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.