Herrera v. Springer Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Springer Corporation v. Herrera (1973), Transport Indemnity Company v. Garcia (1976)
55 state decisions
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 Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes · Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co. · Gomes v. Williams · McDonald v. E. J. Lavino Co. · Consolidated Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman Construction Corp.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““C. The right of any workman, or, in case of his death, of those entitled to receive payment or damages for injuries occasioned to him by the negligence or wrong of any person other than the employer or any other employee of the employer, including a management or supervisory employee, shall not be affected by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but he or they, as the case may be, shall not be allowed to receive payment or to recover damages therefor and also claim compensation from the employer, and in such case the receipt of compensation from the employer shall operate as an assignment to the employer, his or its insurer, guarantor or surety, as the case may be of any cause of action, to the extent of payment by the employer to the workman for compensation, surgical, medical, osteopathic, chiropractic, and hospital services and medicine occasioned by the injury which the workman or his legal representative or others may have against any other party for the injuries or death." (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Our Supreme Court has consistently held that § 59-10-25, supra is a reimbursement statute; it has also consistently held that there is but one cause of action. Varney v. Taylor, 71 N.M. 444 , 379 P.2d 84 (1963); Royal Indem. Co. v. Southern Cal. Petroleum Corp., 67 N.M. 137 , 353 P.2d 358 (1960); Kandelin v. Lee Moor Contracting Co., 37 N.M. 479 , 24 P.2d 731 (1933). As to the workman’s position under § 59-10-25, supra, Castro v. Bass, 74 N.M. 254 , 392 P.2d 668 (1964) states: ‘. . . our statute contemplated that an employee receiving compensation had a right to sue a third party tortfeasor responsible for his injury; that this right was for the entire amount of damages suffered by the workman with the employer or his insurer to be reimbursed out of any amounts received.’ We emphasize two points: the workman sues the third party for the entire amount of damages; the employer or insurer is reimbursed out of amounts received by the workman.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he receipt of compensation from the employer shall operate as an assignment to the employer or his insurer ... of any cause of action, to the extent of payment by the employer to or on behalf of the worker for compensation or any other benefits to which the worker was entitled under the Workers’ Compensation Act ... that the worker or his legal representative or others may have against any other party for the injury or disablement.”
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.