Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 N.M. 573 - Schrib v. Seidenberg

Schrib v. Seidenberg’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
6
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 246 - Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co. (1992), Stang v. Hertz Corporation (1972)

6 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

4601969197019801990200020102020decided

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 Cervantes v. Forbis · Dahl v. Turner · Buchanan v. Downing · Los Alamos Medical Center, Inc. v. Coe · Sweitzer v. Sanchez

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

  1. ““(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if “(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and “(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. “(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although “(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and “(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Malpractice is a form of negligence. See Buchanan v. Downing, 74 N.M. 423 , 394 P.2d 269 (1964); N.M.U.J.I. 8.1. Before a physician may be held liable for malpractice, there must be a showing that he departed from recognized standards of medical practice. Cervantes v. Forbis, 73 N.M. 445 , 389 P.2d 210 (1964). In addition, that departure must be the proximate cause of the incident or occurrence which is the subject of the litigation. Buchanan v. Downing, supra."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Both claims — excessiveness and inadequacy — have been presented by comparing awards in other cases. Such comparisons are not a proper basis for determining either excessiveness or inadequacy of damages. The comparisons are improper because the propriety of the amount of the damages awarded must be determined from the evidence in the case under consideration.”
    2 later decisions 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.