Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 N.M. 450 - State v. Dressel

State v. Dressel’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2018

19 state decisions

8019731980199020002010decided

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 State v. Romero · State v. Deaton · Oliver v. United States · Powell v. Laughter · Territory of New Mexico v. Leslie

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

  1. “A conspiracy is a common design or agreement to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means. One cannot be a party to a conspiracy unless one knows of the conspiracy. State v. Dressel states: Conspiracy is seldom susceptible of direct proof and is usually established by inference from the conduct of the parties. * * * A formal agreement need not be proved; a mutually implied understanding is sufficient to establish the conspiracy.”
    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.