Fort v. Neal’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 1994 · most notably United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co. (1980), Chavez v. Chenoweth (1976)
48 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 Martinez v. Research Park, Inc. · 12 Ill. 2d 231 - People Ex Rel. Terry v. Fisher · Montoya v. McManus · Lucas v. District Court · Jeppesen v. Swanson
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We first note the rule that statutes are to be given effect as written, Gonzales v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, 77 N.M. 61 , 419 P.2d 257 (1966), and where free from ambiguity, there is no room for construction. Martinez v. Research Park, Inc., 75 N.M. 672 , 410 P.2d 200 (1966). Where there is ambiguity, however, and meaning is not clear, resort may be had to construction and interpretation, Montoya v. McManus, 68 N.M. 381 , 362 P.2d 771 (1961); Weiser v. Albuquerque Oil & Gasoline Co., 64 N.M. 137 , 325 P.2d 720 (1958), and, even then, intent is to be determined primarily from the language used, Montoya v. Mc-Manus, supra, and the entire provision is to be read together so that all parts are given effect in arriving at the intent of the drafters and promulgators. Drink, Inc. v. Babcock, 77 N.M. 277 , 421 P.2d 798 (1967); Cox v. City of Albuquerque, 53 N.M. 334 , 207 P.2d 1017 (1949).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party . . . It is not ground for objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Emphasis added.) 20”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Herrera
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.