Holman v. Oriental Refinery’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1997 · most notably Durrett v. Petritsis (1970), Malone v. Swift Fresh Meats Co. (1978)
32 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 Wright v. National Surety Corp. · Hartmann v. Time, Inc. · Barthel v. Stamm · Time, Inc. v. Hartmann · Lipe v. Bradbury
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.
““That workmen’s compensation statutes are sui generis, and that the rules of procedure in civil actions are not applicable except as specifically provided therein, has been long recognized by us. Lipe v. Bradbury, 49 N.M. 4 , 154 P.2d 1000 ; Hudson v. Herschbach Drilling Co., 46 N.M. 330 , 128 P.2d 1044 . Also, as was noted in Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 52 N.M. 93 , 192 P.2d 307 , ‘special statutory * * * proceedings where existing rules are inconsistent * * * ’ are specifically excepted from the operation of our rules of civil procedure. (§ 21-1-1(1), N.M.S.A.1953). In Armijo v. United States Casualty Company, 67 N.M. 470 , 357 P.2d 57 , we held the summary judgment procedure of our rules inapplicable. Prior to amendment of our workmen’s compensation statute in 1959 (§ 59 — 10— 13.9, N.M.S.A.1953) there was no provision in the workmen’s compensation law for application of any of the rules of civil procedure. Since the effective date of § 59-10-13.9, supra, a different situation exists. Now the rules of civil procedure apply ‘ * * * except where provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act directly conflict with these rules * * * > »”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ 'Disablement’ means total physical incapacity by reason’of an occupational disease as defined in this act to perform any work for remuneration or profit in the pursuit in which he was engaged. * * * ” [Emphasis added]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ojinaga v. Dressman“* * * so long as facts are pleaded from which the employee's rights may be determined, defects may be corrected * * *.”
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.