C. De Baca v. Baca’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In American Trust & Savings Bank of Albuquerque v. Scobee, 29 N.M. 436, 453 , 224 P. 788, 790 , we stated: "`There is a general rule that all persons, whose interests will necessarily be affected by any decree is [in] a given case, are necessary and indispensable parties, and the court will not proceed to a decree without them. Where such necessary parties cannot for any reason be brought before the court, there is nothing to be done except to dismiss the bill, for the suit is inherently defective. * * *' Other decisions to like effect are State Game Commission v. Tackett, 71 N.M. 400 , 379 P.2d 54 ; Sellman v. Haddock, 62 N.M. 391 , 310 P.2d 1045 ; Keirsey v. Hirsch, 58 N.M. 18 , 265 P.2d 346 , 43 A.L.R.2d 929 ; Hugh K. Gale Post No. 2182 v. Norris, 53 N.M. 58 , 201 P.2d 777 ; Page v. Town of Gallup, 26 N.M. 239 , 191 P. 460 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eastham v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n Board · Eastham v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT ASS'N BD.

2. “"... It is a familiar and fundamental rule that a court can make no decree affecting the rights of a person over whom it has not obtained jurisdiction, or between the parties before it, which so far involves or depends upon the rights of an absent person, that complete and final justice can not be done between the parties to the suit without affecting those rights. ... The interest of Ellen Casey was necessarily so interwoven with the interests of the parties to this suit, that no decree could possibly be made, affecting the rights of those before the court, without operating upon her interest... ." [Emphasis added]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Herrera v. Springer Corporation · Herrera v. Town of Atrisco

3. ““The executor argues that it was then too ■ late to have citation issued. He takes the position that ‘forthwith’ meant within the six months period that was given to file a petition. Contestant points to the language of § 30-2-14, supra, which says service shall be made within six months from the date of issuance of the citation, and it never having issued, the time has not expired for its issuance and service. While not considering it necessary that we decide if ‘forthwith’ might mean within six months after probate, it is perfectly apparent that it could not have been intended that unreasonable delays be permitted to intervene. The importance of prompt settling of estates cannot be questioned. It is apparent that the legislature had this in mind when it limited the time for filing contests ; when it required that citation issue ‘forthwith’; and when it provided for dismissal of the contest if service was not made within six months thereafter, [citation omitted] It accordingly devolves upon us to interpret the statute so as to accomplish the ends sought by the legislature. Assuming, but not deciding, that the statute did not require issuance of the citations within the six months provided for contest after approval of the will, it would unquestionably be required that the citations be issued reasonably promptly, or without undue delay. Certainly, the failure to have any citation issued for the length of time that elapsed in the instant case, could under no circumstances be a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shields v. Shields