Arnold v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Hicks v. State (1976), Sangre De Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe (1972)
28 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 David Kawananakoa v. Ellen Albertina Polyblank · Langford v. United States · Taos County Board of Education v. Sedillo · American Trust & Savings Bank v. Scobee · Dougherty v. Vidal
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"For the purpose of this act, the state of New Mexico, or any official thereof, may be sued and declaratory judgment entered when the rights, status or other legal relations of the parties call for a construction of the Constitution of the state of New Mexico, or any statute thereof."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Moreover, a question of jurisdiction arises. This court is the creature of the sovereign state. It can have no natural or presumptive jurisdiction over its creator. Such jurisdiction as we have over the state we must trace to the Constitution or to that branch of government which declares the state’s public policy. In the absence of plain consent, to entertain a suit against the state is judicial usurpation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vigil v. State“"`It is a fundamental doctrine at common law and everywhere in America that no sovereign state can be sued in its own courts or in any other without its consent and permission.' State ex rel. Evans v. Field, 27 N.M. 384 , 201 P. 1059 , 1060 [1921]. * * *" (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hicks v. State
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.