Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 N.M. 107 - Montgomery v. Vigil

Montgomery v. Vigil’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road (1961), Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. v. North River Insurance (1998)

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

26019581960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Hall v. Stiles · Mares v. New Mexico Public Service Co. · Rosa v. American Oil Co., Inc. · Nelson v. Hill · Boydston v. Twaddell

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

  1. “[T]he findings of the jury should not be disturbed as excessive except in extreme cases, as where it results from passion, prejudice, partiality, sympathy, undue influence, or some corrupt cause or motive where palpable error is committed by the jury, or where the jury has mistaken the measure of damages. However, the mere fact that a jury’s award is possibly larger than the court would have given is not sufficient to disturb a verdict.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * in determining whether the award is excessive we will not weigh the evidence but only look to see whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to appellee, affords substantial support for the award. * * * If it does, and there is no specific finding of an indication of passion, prejudice, partiality, sympathy, undue influence or a mistaken measure of damages on the part of the fact-finder, then the award will not be disturbed on appeal.””
    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.