Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 N.M. 254 - Esquibel v. Hallmark

Esquibel v. Hallmark’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Pacheco v. Martinez (1981), State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Minjares (1982)

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

10019781980199020002010decided

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 Marquez v. Padilla · Birtrong v. Coronado Building Corp. · Velasquez v. Cox · Platt v. Martinez · Flores v. Bruesselbach

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

  1. “If there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision, we will not disturb that decision on appeal. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion. In reviewing a claim that the trial court’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision below, resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of that decision and disregarding evidence to the contrary. We will reverse only when the evidence, or reasonable inferences from the evidence, cannot support the trial court’s findings and conclusions.”
    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.