State v. Viscarra’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
May 1987
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Austin · State v. Zarafonetis · Brown v. Village of Deming · Westland Corporation v. Commissioner of Revenue · State v. Ramirez
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Receiving stolen property consists of buying, procuring, receiving or concealing anything of value, knowing or having reason to believe the same to have been stolen * * Section 40A-16-11, N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Capshaw v. State““Section 40A-16-11, supra, does not contain such words as ‘with intent.’ Specific intent is not an essential element of the crime defined.” State v. Viscarra, 84 N.M. 217 , 501 P.2d 261, 262 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Capshaw v. State
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.