Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 N.M. 228 - Beyer v. Montoya

Beyer v. Montoya’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
October 1983
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 1983 · most notably Nichols v. Nichols (1982), Martinez v. City of Albuquerque (1972)

32 state decisions

210196519701980decided

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 Ortega v. Koury · City of Roswell v. Holmes · Martin v. Leonard Motor-El Paso · Ringle Development Corporation v. Chavez · Gray v. Esslinger

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

  1. ““ * * * It was his duty to keep a lookout and actually see what was in the street that he was using, and a failure so to do constitutes negligence on his part. * * * “ ‘In order to keep a proper lookout, a motorist must do more than merely look ; it is his duty to see and be cognizant of what is in plain view or obviously apparent, and he is chargeable with seeing what he should have seen, but not with what he could not have seen in the exercise of ordinary care. “ ‘Merely looking is not sufficient performance of the motorist’s duty to keep a proper lookout. It is his duty, unless some reasonable excuse or explanation for not seeing is shown, to see what is in plain view or obviously apparent, or the things which a person in the exercise of due care and caution would see under like or similar circumstances, and to be cognizant of them and utilize the information obtained to prevent injury to himself and others. He is not absolved from liability by a failure to see what he could have seen by the exercise of due diligence, but is chargeable with seeing what he should have seen, or that which is apparent or in plain view, or which he could have seen had he looked, or with knowledge of all that a prudent and vigilant operator would have seen.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “On the issue of negligence, Beyer 'states “ * * * While under the evidence the court might have concluded that Mrs. Beyer, as well as Mr. Montoya, were negligent, or that Mr. Montoya was free from negligence, in either of which events recovery would have been denied, it does not follow that the facts demonstrate negligence on the part of Mrs. Beyer as a matter of law, or that the court erred in holding that she was free from negligence as a matter of fact. * * *””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “or unless from some other good reason, the plaintiff is unable, for causes beyond his control, to bring the case to trial.”
    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.