Wall v. Gillett’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
6 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2014
6 district · 14 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 Hogsett v. Hanna · Wilson v. New Mexico Lumber & Timber Co. · Natseway v. Jojola · State Ex Rel. De Moss v. District Court of the Sixth Judicial Dist. · Bretthauer v. Jacobson
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.
“Such is the rule under our general limitation statutes, which deal only with remedial procedure; but the limitation provision applicable to actions for wrongful death is not only a limitation on the remedy but also on the right to institute such action.... In an action under the Workmen’s Compensation Act brought under circumstances identical with this case, that is, where a change had been made in the time within which suit could be brought, Wilson v. New Mexico Lumber & Timber Co., 1938, 42 N.M. 438 , 81 P.2d 61 , we held the limitation statute in effect at the time of the injury controlled. The claim was barred under the six months’ limitation statute in effect at the time of injury, N.M. Comp. St. 1929, § 156-113, but would have been timely made if the 1937 Act, Ch. 92, § 7, had governed. The authorities were thoroughly reviewed in that case by Justice Sadler and it would not serve any useful purpose to repeat them here. The decision is bottomed on the rule that where not only the remedy is involved, but also the right to maintain such action, such an amendment is given only prospective effect. ... There, as here, the suit was filed too late if the act in effect at the time of death controlled, but timely filed if the amendment governed. It was held the limitation in effect at the time of death governed the right to prosecute the action and that the defendant was exempt from all claims after the expiration of the time fixed. There is nothing in the 1953 amendment which ev”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is not only a limitation on the remedy but also on the right to institute such an action.”
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.