Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 N.M. 228 - Lindsey v. Cranfill

Lindsey v. Cranfill’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
January 1972
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1972

10 state decisions

60195619601970decided

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 Amies v. Wesnofske · Crowe v. Trickey · Franciscan Hotel Co. v. Albuquerque Hotel Co. · Williams v. Engler · Pankey v. Hot Springs Nat. Bank

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

  1. ““Plaintiff-appellant first suggests that, since the directed verdict was sustained, the consideration of testimony put in by plaintiff before the motion was made should have every reasonable inference flowing from it and that all conflicts in the evidence should be disregarded, the action of the court resting solely upon the substantial evidence supporting plaintiff’s cause of action. Plaintiff cites In re Garcia’s Estate, 45 N.M. 8 , 107 P.2d 866 ; Morrison v. First National Bank, 28 N.M. 129 , 207 P. 62 ; Sanchez v. Torres, 35 N.M. 383 , 298 P. 408 ; Jackson v. Gallegos, 38 N.M. 211 , 30 P.2d 719 ; Pankey v. Hot Springs National Bank, 46 N.M. 10 , 119 P.2d 636 . “We agree with plaintiff’s statement as to the consideration of testimony required when ruling upon a motion for directed verdict.””
    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.