Sanchez v. Securities Acceptance Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 1982
22 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 Lake Shore Ry Co v. Prentice · Stewart v. Potter · Miera v. George · Holloway v. Evans · Di Palma v. Weinman
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“INSTRUCTION NO. 3 A corporation can act only through its officers and employees. Any act or omission of an officer or an employee of a corporation within the scope or course of his employment is the act or omission of the corporation. INSTRUCTION NO. 8 When I use the expression "willful and wanton conduct" I mean a course of action which shows actual or deliberate intention to harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for a person's own safety and the safety of others. INSTRUCTION NO. 16 If you find that the conduct of Defendant was willful and wanton and proximately caused damage to Plaintiff, and if you further find that justice and the public good require it, you may award Plaintiff, in addition to any compensatory damages to which you find Plaintiff entitled, an amount by way of example or punishment, as punitive damages, which will serve to punish the Defendant and to deter others from the commission of like offenses. Unless compensatory damages are first found, punitive damages cannot be awarded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Exemplary or punitive damages, being awarded, not by way of compensation to the sufferer, but by way of punishment of the offender, and as a warning to others, can only be awarded against one who has participated in the offense. A principal, therefore, though of course liable to make compensation for injuries done by his agent, within the scope of his employment, cannot be held liable for exemplary or punitive damages, merely by reason of wanton, oppressive, or malicious intent on the part of the agent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is no question in New Mexico concerning the power of a trial court to amend or clarify an incomplete or ambiguous verdict, Johnson v. Mercantile Ins. Co. of America, 47 N.M. 47 , 133 P.2d 708 ; Holloway v. Evans, 55 N.M. 601 , 238 P.2d 457 ; Di Palma v. Weinman, 16 N.M. 302 , 121 P. 38 . This, indeed, is in line with the overwhelming weight of authority; the cases are collected [in] 116 A.L.R. 845 , 8 A.L.R.2d 864 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sanchez v. Martinez
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.