Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 N.M. 267 - Padilla v. Winsor

Padilla v. Winsor’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
September 1991
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 1991 · most notably Koenig v. Perez (1986), Williamson v. Smith (1971)

4 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

2201960197019801990decided

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 Olguin v. Thygesen · Hogsett v. Hanna · Chandler v. Battenfield · Addison v. Tessier · Williams v. City of Hobbs

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

  1. ““ ‘Q. Did you tell Mr. Winsor about your experience with the horse that morning and what the horse did? A. Yes, when we was driving the bunch I told Mr. Winsor that Trigger had throwed me down and we began to talk about him, and he said that he throwed him once, too, but I didn’t pay much attention to the old man because Mr. Winsor used to use just one spur, and I thought that he had catched the horse with a spur and that’s what make him buck, so I didn’t pay much attention that the horse was mean. ‘Q. ' But Mr. Winsor did tell you that the horse had thrown him? A. Yes, one day that he and Severda was working cattle he said that horse started bucking without reason, but I kind of jumped Mr. Winsor that he had hooked him with a spur.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The true rule, as nearly as it can be stated, is that a servant can recover for an injury suffered from defects due to the master's fault, of which he had notice, if under all the circumstances, a servant of ordinary prudence, would under similar conditions, have been justified in continuing the same work under the same risk. All the circumstances must be taken into account and not merely the isolated fact of risk.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “* * * the servant does not assume any risks resulting from his continuing to work and use the instrumentality about which he has complained and is seeking to have the master remedy.”
    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.