Breeden v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably Hovet v. Allstate Insurance (2004), Raskob v. Sanchez (1998)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 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 Olguin v. Thygesen · Krametbauer v. McDonald · Stalcup v. Ruzic · Lopez v. Townsend · James v. Young
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.
“Appellees place much emphasis upon whether or not the legislative act is in specific terms for the benefit of the injured members of the public. This seems a meaningless search, since the only possible legislative authority to pass such acts or purpose for passing such acts is the protection of the public. Therefore, the element of public interest is necessarily present in all such enactments regardless of the language in which it is stated. 7”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the insured shall have fully complied with all the terms of this policy, nor until the amount of the insured's obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the company.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Certainly, in their broad language, they seem to do so [allow joinder of claims and remedies]. However, under the view we have taken of this case, the question involved is not procedural, but one involving the substantive rights of the parties. The rules are procedural and do not control substantive rights. [ 58 N.M. at 525 , 273 P.2d at 380 ].”
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.