State v. Romero’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably H. T. Coker Construction Co. v. Whitfield Transportation, Inc. (1974), State v. Vigil (1975)
2 federal appellate · 68 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 State v. Compton · Ferguson-Steere Motor Co. v. State Corp. Commission · State v. Oliver · Kitts v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc. · State v. Hernandez
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the evidence must be buttressed by surmise and conjecture, rather than logical inference in order to support a conviction, ... such conviction [cannot be allowed] to stand.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ferguson · State v. Vigil““ * * * hearsay evidence may have sufficient probative worth to support a verdict * * * However, this rule does not operate to make objectionable testimony conclusive proof of the matter asserted therein. The fact that it was hearsay does not prevent its use as proof so far as it has probative value, but this is limited to the extent of whatever rational persuasive power it may have. * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Baca · State v. Mann“"Assuming, without deciding, that the unexplained exclusive possession of recently stolen goods may be substantial evidence on which to sustain a conviction compare State v. Lott, 1936, 40 N.M. 147 , 56 P.2d 1029 , with State v. White, 1933, 37 N.M. 121 , 19 P.2d 192 the first issue presented is whether, under the above state of facts, the state has shown exclusive possession of the stolen property by the appellant. We think not. "In State v. White, 1933, 37 N.M. 121, 124 , 19 P.2d 192, 194 , we stated: `Possession of the fruits of crime * * * involves knowledge, dominion, and control, with power of disposal, or voice in the power of disposal, in the alleged possessor. * * * `It would be carrying the rule too far to require one accused of crime to explain the possession of stolen property, when such possession could also, with equal right, be attributed to another. * * *' State of Idaho v. Frank Sullivan et al., 34 Idaho 68 , 199 P. 647 , 17 A.L.R. 902 , at pages 907 and 908.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sedillo
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.