Stephens v. Dulaney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Contributory negligence is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury and not a question of law. Olguin v. Thygesen, 47 N.M. 377 , 143 P.2d 585 (1943); Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 (1951); Thompson v. Dale, 59 N.M. 290 , 283 P.2d 623 (1955); Horrocks v. Rounds, 70 N.M. 73 , 370 P.2d 799 (1962); Mozert v. Noeding, 76 N.M. 396 , 415 P.2d 364 (1966). If there was any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, from which legitimate inferences could be drawn, and upon which evidence and inferences the minds of reasonable men might differ as to whether or not plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, then the question was one for the jury. Mozert v. Noeding, supra; Brown v. Hayes, 69 N.M. 24 , 363 P.2d 632 (1961); Williams v. City of Hobbs, 56 N.M. 733 , 249 P.2d 765 (1952). See Lopez v. Townsend, 42 N.M. 601 , 82 P.2d 921 (1938); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328B, comment d, § 328C, comment a (1965).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lujan v. Reed

2. “"19. When I use the expression `contributory negligence', I mean negligence on the part of the plaintiffs that proximately contributed to cause the alleged damages of which plaintiffs complain. "20. In determining the issues of negligence and contributory negligence you are not to consider whether the plaintiffs were more or less negligent than the defendants. New Mexico law does not permit you to compare negligence. "The plaintiffs cannot recover if they were negligent and that negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and alleged injuries even though you believe that the defendants may have been more negligent."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Romero v. Melbourne

3. “"Ordinarily, the question of contributory negligence is a fact question to be determined by the jury. * * * The question of contributory negligence is properly taken from the jury only when reasonable minds cannot differ on the question and readily reach the conclusion that plaintiff’s conduct falls below the standard to which he should have conformed for his own protection, and that this negligent conduct on his part proximately contributed with the negligence of the defendant in causing the injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wood v. Southwestern Public Service Company