Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 N.M. 591 - Kelly v. Montoya

Kelly v. Montoya’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
4
states following
September 2006
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Calkins v. Cox Estates (1990), C & H Construction & Paving Co. v. Citizens Bank (1979)

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 state decisions

4201970198019902000decided

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 Thompson v. Anderman · Beesley v. United States · 66 Ill. App. 2d 407 - Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Jones · Haworth v. Mosher

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

  1. “"A partial definition of proximate cause is `* * * that which * * * produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred. * * *' Thompson v. Anderman, 59 N.M. 400 , 285 P.2d 507 (1955). For an intervening act to be an independent cause, Thompson v. Anderman, supra, states: `* * * Such intervening cause must be sufficient in and of itself to break the natural sequence of the first negligence. * * *' "* * * "* * * If reasonable minds might differ on these issues, the matter is for the jury. * * *"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The proximate canse of an injury is that which in a natural and continuous sequence [unbroken by any independent intervening cause] produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred. [It need not be the only cause, nor the last nor nearest cause. It is sufficient if it occurs with some other cause acting at the same time, which in combination with it, causes the injury].””
    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.