Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 N.M. 366 - State v. Spearman

State v. Spearman’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

2 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012

2 district · 19 state decisions

6019721980199020002010decided

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 Griffin v. California · Bradbury & Stamm Construction Co. v. Bureau of Revenue · State v. Miller · State v. Buchanan · Patterson v. State

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

  1. ““ ‘It is well established in this jurisdiction that a part of a law may be invalid and the remainder valid, where the invalid part may be separated from the other portions, without impairing the force and effect of the remaining parts, and if the legislative purpose as expressed in the valid portion can be given force and effect, without the invalid part, and, when considering the entire act it cannot be said that the legislature would not have passed the remaining part if it had known that the objectionable part was invalid. . . . ’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “before a partially invalid statute ... can be held to still be in force it must satisfy three tests. First, the invalid portion must be able to be separated from the other portions without impairing their effect. Second, the legislative purpose expressed in the valid portion of the act must be able to be given effect without the invalid portion. And, thirdly, it cannot be said, on a consideration of the whole act, that the legislature would not have passed the valid part if it had known that the objectionable part was invalid.”
    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.