Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 N.M. 387 - McMinn v. Thompson

McMinn v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
3
states following
October 1992
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 1992

20 state decisions

10019561960197019801990decided

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 Williams v. Haas · Curtis v. Schwartzman Packing Company · Bozman v. State Ex Rel. Cronhardt · Zamora Ex Rel. Zamora v. J. Korber & Co. · Moss v. Acuff

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

  1. “"The next point urged by defendant is the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in crossing the street in the middle of the block in violation of an ordinance of the City of Portales prohibiting one from standing or walking in a street if it interferes with traffic, and that she also violated § 64-18-34, NMSA 1953, which provides every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked cross walk or within an unmarked cross walk within an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. "It is not to be questioned that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence per se in crossing this street (which is also a state highway) in the middle of the block in the nighttime so that she was struck by a car with its headlights burning and of which she had an unobstructed view. Zamora v. J. Korber & Co., 1955, 59 N.M. 33 , 278 P.2d 569 ; Moss v. Acuff, 1953, 57 N.M. 572 , 260 P.2d 1108 . The question is, Should the trial court have held as a matter of law that her acts were a proximate contributing cause of her injury and directed a verdict against her, or was it the province of the jury to determine such question and to award the plaintiff damages if it determined the issue in the negative? We believe it was a matter for the determination of the jury under our decisions in Williams v. Haas, 1948, 52 N.M. 9 , 189 P.2d 632 , and Curtis v. Schwartzman Packing Co., 61 N.M. 305 , 299 P.2d 776 ."”
    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.