Sproles v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * if the controversy involves a question concerning the legality of a state lease, the eligibility of the lessee thereunder, the matter of performance of the lease, reservations, if any, in the lease, or a matter of public policy requiring passage thereon by the commissioner of public lands, then the commissioner is not only a necessary party, but is an indispensable party. If, on the other hand, none of the above questions are involved, a district court should have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues as between private litigants, liberally allowing, however, intervention to the commissioner, if any public land question is or could be involved in the case.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sims v. Sims · State Game Commission v. Tackett

2. ““Whereas, we have held that a boundary line that is uncertain or in dispute may be established by acquiescence, which is comparable to an implied agreement, Murray Hotel Co. v. Golding, 54 N.M. 149 , 216 P.2d 364 , or by agreement, Rodriguez v. La Cueva Ranch Co., 17 N.M. 246 , 134 P. 228 , proof of long recognition by the abutting owners is sufficient to support a finding as to true location, Velasquez v. Cox, 50 N.M. 338 , 176 P.2d 909 . However, the elements of uncertainty and dispute are not essential conditions to the establishment of boundary lines by acquiescence. Woodburn v. Grimes, 58 N.M. 717 , 275 P.2d [850] 805. “Where, as here, the court has considered all of the evidence before it and has determined .the true location of the boundary, and the boundary is different from the one acquiesced in over the years, on review we will not disturb such finding when supported by substantial evidence. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Heaton v. Miller

3. ““The doctrine or rule [balancing of equities] is sometimes stated to be that the court will weigh the loss, injury, or hardship resulting to the respective parties from granting or withholding equitable relief; that if the loss resulting to the plaintiff from denying the equitable relief will be slight as compared to the loss or hardship caused to the defendant if the injunction is granted, the equitable relief will be denied. The plaintiff is left to pursuit of damages as his remedy.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Amkco, Ltd., Co. v. Welborn