Hales v. Van Cleave’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably State v. Manlove (1968), Samora v. Bradford (1970)
58 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 Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company · Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank · Wilson v. Employment Security Commission · Luna v. Flores · Varney v. Taylor
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 matter of assessing costs ... lies within the discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere with the trial court's exercise of this discretion in this regard, except in the case of abuse. Hales v. Van Cleave, 78 N.M. 181, 185 , 429 P.2d 379 (1967), cert. denied, 78 N.M. 198 , 429 P.2d 657 (1967).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Even though the testimony of the plaintiff was not contradicted, the trial court could still determine his credibility from all the facts and circumstances, as well as his demeanor on the stand, his interest or bias shown by his testimony, his conduct, the inherent probability or improbability of his statements, and from all these matters determine the truthfulness of his testimony. [Citations omitted.] Even though we may have made a finding contrary to that of the trial court, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court who heard all the evidence and observed the demeanor of the witness... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“He [workman] cites absolutely no authority for his contention that he was entitled to be reimbursed for these claimed expenses. The trial court refused the requested finding tendered by plaintiff, and concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses. Since the trial court refused the requested finding by plaintiff, upon whom rested the burden of establishing the amount of these expenses and his right to recover the same, if they were in fact properly recoverable, this amounted to a finding against plaintiff on this issue. Id. at 186 , 429 P.2d at 384 .”
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.