Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 55 N.M. 71 - Crosthwait v. White

Crosthwait v. White’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
March 1985
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 1985 · most notably Conover v. Newton (1979), State Ex Rel. State Park & Recreation Commission v. New Mexico State Authority (1966)

34 state decisions

1401951196019701980decided

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 State v. Ingalls · Hutcheson v. Atherton · State v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · State v. Gomez · Scarbrough v. Wooten

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

  1. “"In our opinion, the true test of the validity of a statute under this constitutional provision is: Does the title fairly give such reasonable notice of the subject-matter of the statute itself as to prevent the mischief intended to be guarded against? If so, the act should be sustained. The reason of the rule not applying to such cases, the rule itself does not apply."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Section 1. Whenever, because of the location and conditions of roads, or the existence or non-existence of transportation facilities, it will be more convenient for the residents of any portion of a county to travel to the county seat of some other contiguous county, and because of such location and condition of roads or the existence or nonexistence of transportation facilities, it will be more convenient and economical for such other county to render governmental services to such portion of such other county, the portion of the county so affected may be annexed to such other county in the following manner: “Section 2. A petition executed by at least fifty-one per cent (51%) of the qualified electors residing within the portion of the county proposed to be annexed shall be filed with the county commissioners of the county in which such portion is located. Such petition shall set forth the facts showing the existence of the conditions described in Section 1 hereof and shall accurately set out the boundaries of the portion of the county proposed to be annexed. “Section 3. Immediately upon the filing of such petition, it shall be the duty of the county commissioners with whom such petition is filed to cause a notice to be published in some newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in each county affected. Within thirty (30) days after the publication of such notice, but not thereafter, any resident of either of the counties affected, on behalf of himself and all others si”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The aim and necessity of this constitutional provision, is apparent. The reason for its existence is a matter of history in nearly all our states. Its purposes, as outlined by Mr. Cooley, are: “First, to prevent hodgepodge or ‘logrolling’ legislation; second, to’prevent surprise or fraud upon the Legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the titles give no intimation, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and, third, to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon. Cooley’s Const.Lim. (7th Ed.) 205. * * * * * “ * * * In our opinion, the true test of the validity of a statute under this constitutional provision is: Does the title fairly give such reasonable notice of the subject-matter of the statute itself as. to prevent the mischief intended to be guarded against? If so, the act should be sustained. The reason of the rule not applying to such cases, the rule itself does not apply.” [18 N.Mex. 21i; 135 P. 1178 .]”
    1 later decision 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.