State Ex Rel. Dickson v. Saiz’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
1 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably State Ex Rel. Sego v. Kirkpatrick (1974), Bradbury & Stamm Construction Co. v. Bureau of Revenue (1962)
1 district · 38 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 Fergus v. Russel · State v. Shroyer · State Ex Rel. Hannah v. Armijo · Spokane Grain & Fuel Co. v. Lyttaker · State ex rel. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Henry
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Furthermore, in the attack made upon the bill or statute in this Court we are confronted at the very outset with a presumption of the validity of the act. Indeed, it has been many times held in this Court that it should be well satisfied of the invalidity of an act upon constitutional grounds before striking it down; that if two constructions each equally reasonable should exist, the one sustaining the validity of the act is to be preferred. Fowler v. Corlett, 56 N.M. 430 , 244 P.2d 1122 . Some courts, even the highest court of the land, go so far as to suggest an appellate court should be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of an act's invalidity on constitutional grounds before declaring it so. State ex rel. Hannah v. Armijo, 38 N.M. 73 , 28 P.2d 511 ; State ex rel. New Mexico Dry Cleaning Board v. Cauthen, 48 N.M. 436 , 152 P.2d 255 ; State v. Shroyer, 49 N.M. 196 , 160 P.2d 444 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * whether Art. IV, § 22, of the Constitution in giving the Governor power as to bills presented to him during the last three days of a legislative session, to veto ‘any part or parts, item or items, of any bill appropriating money’ which he disapproves, limits him in any exercise of the power to action on general appropriation bills.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘It [the Constitutional Convention] specifically rejected a proposal which limited the partial veto power to items of appropriations. It specifically adopted a proposal which increased the partial veto power to parts of bills of general legislation which contained incidental items of appropriation.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.