Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 N.M. 441 - State Ex Rel. Sedillo v. Anderson

State Ex Rel. Sedillo v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
December 1972
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1972

9 state decisions

401949195019601970decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 291

Relies on Seaboard Realty Co. v. Seaboard All-Florida Railway · Payne v. Williams · State v. Towndrow · Arizona Mutual Auto Insurance v. Bisbee Auto Co. · State ex rel. Claar v. Branning

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

  1. ““ * * * Indeed, the provision is silent on how the Chief Justice is to be informed of the occasion for making a designation. The tenor of the language employed yields to no other conclusion than that the Chief Justice himself is to determine existence of the facts calling for a designation. In making such determination, he may rely on facts presented to him by some district judge in connection with a request to designate, although he is not confined to information from that source. The query then follows, having made such determination as recited in an order of designation, how conclusive is it ? May its verity be impugned in a challenge to the jurisdiction to act of the judge or justice named in an order carrying such recitals? We think not and shall proceed to state our reasons.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * Indeed, no member of the Court other than the Chief Justice presumes to exercise either his constitutional or statutory power of designation while he is present in the state. No court rule or statute could take the constitutional power from him, nor has his right to exercise it anywhere in the state ever been questioned until now. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Whenever the public business may require, the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall designate any district judge of the state, or any justice of the Supreme Court when no district judge may be available within a reasonable time, to hold court in any district, and two or more judges may sit in any district or county separately at the same time. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.