Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 N.M. 86 - Le Doux v. Martinez

Le Doux v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
January 1979
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 1979 · most notably Fitzgerald v. Valdez (1967), Cooper v. Curry (1979)

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

140195319601970decided

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 Campagna v. Market Street Railway Co. · Archuleta v. Jacobs · Floeck v. Hoover · McMullen v. Ursuline Order of Sisters · Herrell v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

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.

  1. ““The parties are in accord on the essential elements which must be present in order to warrant the application of the last clear chance doctrine, (a) that the appellant has been negligent, (b) that as a result of her negligence she is in a position of peril from which she cannot escape by the exercise of ordinary care, (c) that the defendant knows or should have known of plaintiff’s peril, and (d) that appellee had a clear chance by the exercise of ordinary care to avoid the injury and that he failed to do so.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * It must appear, (1) that plaintiff has been negligent, (2) that as a result of his negligence he is in a position of peril from which he cannot escape by the exercise of ordinary care, (3) that the defendant knows or should have known of plaintiff’s peril, and (4) that defendant then had a clear chance, by the exercise of ordinary care, to avoid the injury, and that he failed to do so. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"It is a general rule that specific averments in a pleading must be given precedence over general averments, inasmuch as the general allegations are to be deemed explained, limited, and controlled by the special allegation."”
    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.