Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 district · 179 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably State v. Jacobs (2000), State Ex Rel. Collins v. Seidel (1984)
6 district · 179 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 McCarthy v. Arndstein · Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgado · State v. Roy · State v. Gunzelman · State v. Arnold
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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . [Ujnder our Constitution the Legislature lacks power to prescribe by statute rules of evidence and procedure[;] this constitutional power is vested exclusively in this court, and statutes purporting to regulate practice and procedure in the courts cannot be binding, [thus] we are able to reach no conclusion other than that the privilege purportedly created ... is constitutionally invalid and cannot be relied upon or enforced in judicial proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““‘Our constitutional power under N.M. Const. art[J III, § 1 and art. VI, § 3 of superintending control over all inferior courts carries with it the inherent power to regulate all pleading, practice and procedure affecting the judicial branch of government. ... “Under the Constitution, the legislature lacks the power to prescribe by statute rules of practice and procedure, although it has in the past attempted to do so. Certainly statutes purporting to regulate practice and procedure in the courts cannot be made binding, for this constitutional power is vested exclusively in this court.’ ” 89 N.M. at 311 , 551 P.2d at 1358 . (Citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Except as otherwise required by constitution, and except as provided in these rules or in other rules adopted by the supreme court, no person has a privilege to: (1) refuse to be a witness; or (2) refuse to disclose any matter;”
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.