Bouldin v. Sategna’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Herrera Ex Rel. Estate of Ruiz v. Quality Pontiac (2003), Richardson Ex Rel. Estate of Richardson v. Carnegie Library Restaurant, Inc. (1988)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 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 2 Ill. 2d 74 - Ney v. Yellow Cab Co. · 43 Cal. 2d 60 - Richards v. Stanley · Ross v. Hartman · Thompson v. Anderman · Liberto v. Holfeldt
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The proximate cause of an injury is that which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new, independent cause, produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The question which we are called upon to answer may be stated thus: Is the owner of a car who leaves it unattended and without removing the key in violation of § 64-18-53, N.M.S.A. 1953, liable for injuries to persons and property suffered when the car is hit after its having been abandoned on the highway by a thief who stole it? ..... We do not perceive theft of a car as a natural event to be foreseen by a person who is negligent in leaving his car unattended with the key in the ignition. Much less can it be believed that such a state of facts as gave rise to the instant litigation could be remotely considered to be a natural or probable result of defendant's having left his car unlocked, or that they could have been reasonably foreseen. ..... By nothing which we have said do we wish to be understood to be reflecting in any way upon our long established rule that negligence and causal connection are ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. Ortega v. Texas-New Mexico Railway Company, 70 N.M. 58 , 370 P.2d 201 . While fully recognizing this rule, we also recognize the equally well understood rule that where reasonable minds cannot differ, the question is one of law to be resolved by the judge. Greenfield v. Bruskas, 41 N.M. 346 , 68 P.2d 921 ; White v. Montoya, 46 N.M. 241 , 126 P.2d 471 . (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. F & T CO. v. Woods“[n]o person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing the key and effectively setting the brake, or placing the transmission in parking position, thereon and, when standing upon any grade, turning the front wheels in such manner that the vehicle will be held by the curb or will leave the highway if the brake fails. A violation of this section shall not mitigate the offense of stealing a motor vehicle, nor shall the provisions of this section or any violation thereof be admissible as evidence in a civil action for the recovery of a stolen vehicle, or in any other civil action arising out of the theft of a motor vehicle.”
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.