Montano v. Saavedra’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company (1967), Tallman v. ABF (Arkansas Best Freight) (1988)
104 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. Moore · Totah Drilling Company v. Abraham · Mitchell v. Allison · Luna v. Flores · Greene v. Esquibel
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““3. That the plaintiff did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. “4. That the accident complained of by the plaintiff was not reasonably incident to his employment. “5. That the disability claimed by the plaintiff was not an actual and. direct result of any accident incident to his employment. “6. That the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection as a medical probability by expert medical testimony, that the alleged disability of the plaintiff was a natural and direct result of an accident incident to his employment. “7. That the plaintiff merely established that as a medical possibility, there might have been a causal connection between the alleged disability and an accident incident to his employment. “8. That the plaintiff failed to prove any disability as defined in the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of New Mexico. “9. That any injury claimed by plaintiff was not proximately caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with A. Ray Barker Motor Company. “10. That the plaintiff did not sustain a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with A. Ray Barker Motor Company.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is for the trier of the facts to weigh the testimony, determine the credibility of the witnesses, and, to reconcile inconsistent statements and say where the truth lies... . "True enough, there was testimony of the medical expert from which the trial court might have found otherwise. Nevertheless, it was for the trial court, as the fact finder, to evaluate all the evidence and determine where the truth lay ..."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"To entitle a workmen's compensation claimant to recover he must establish causal connection between the accident and the injury complained of as a medical probability. It is not sufficient that causal connection be established by expert testimony as a medical possibility. * * *" (Italics added).”
3 later decisions 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.