Burch v. Foy’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 district · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State Ex Rel. Helman v. Gallegos (1994), Perea v. Baca (1980)
2 district · 75 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 In Re Santillanes · George v. Miller & Smith, Inc. · Hendricks v. Hendricks · State Ex Rel. Dickson v. Saiz · Gonzales v. Sharp & Fellows Contracting 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A statute must be read and given effect as it is written by the Legislature, not as the court may think it should be or would have been written if the Legislature had envisaged all the problems and complications which might arise in the course of its administration____ Courts must take the act as they find it and construe it according to the plain meaning of the language employed.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage““Passing then to the question of classification, we reach really the crucial point of the case. We have endeavored to give this subject the most careful thought and investigation, but have been unable to convince ourselves that the' attempted classification in this law answers the requirements of legal and constitutional classification, i.e., equal protection of the law. It is an old expression that classification, in order to be legal, must be rational; it must be founded upon real differences of situation or condition, which bear a just and proper relation to the attempted classification, and reasonably justify a different rule. State v. Henry, 37 N. M. 536, 25 P. 2d 204 , 90 A. L. R. 805; 12 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, Sections 476 and 481. “It is well settled that there may justly be classification between employer and employee; each may be made a class, and a different rule applied, because there are differences of situation and in the considerations applicable to the various classes. But while classification is proper, there must always be uniformity within the class. If persons under the same circumstances and conditions are treated differently, there is arbitrary discrimination, and not classification. State v. Henry, supra. It is claimed that such is the effect of the present law, and we can see no escape from the conclusion. “Under the provisions of section 3(a)(1) of the act the plaintiff is required to pay his employees the minimum wage of 75‡ per hour. On the o”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““That by denying to plaintiff the right to install and use an incinerator of the type proposed to be used by plaintiff, while permitting another business establishment within the city limits to use an incinerator for similar purposes, the defendant City of Grants is denying to the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws, in derogation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 18, Article II, of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico.””
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.