Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 N.M. 449 - Bolt v. Davis

Bolt v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
3
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Herron v. State (1991), 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State (1978)

62 state decisions

240196219701980199020002010decided

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 Stambaugh v. Hayes · Morris v. Cartwright · Ortega v. Koury · Gallagher's Estate v. Battle · 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] master will not be held responsible for negligent operation of a servant's automobile, even though engaged at the time in furthering the master's business, unless the master expressly or impliedly consented to the use of the automobile, and had the right to control the servant in its operation, or else the use of the automobile was of such vital importance in furthering the master's business that his control over it might reasonably be inferred.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it is impossible to state the rule . . . briefly and comprehensively so as to make it clearly applicable to all cases, because of the ever-varying facts of each particular case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Physical facts and conditions may point so unerringly to the truth as to leave no room for a contrary conclusion based on reason or common sense, and under such circumstances the physical facts are not affected by sworn testimony which in mere words conflicts with them. When the surrounding facts and circumstances make the story of a witness incredible, or when the testimony is inherently improbable, such evidence is not substantial.””
    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.