Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 N.M. 320 - State v. Coe

State v. Coe’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
7
states following
March 2005
most recently cited

2 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2005 · most notably Santillanes v. State (1993), People v. Taggart (1981)

2 district · 34 state decisions

2401978198019902000decided

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. Lucero · State v. Najera · State v. Orzen · State v. Adams · State v. Marchiondo

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

  1. ““Section 40A-6-1(C), supra, is not vague. It clearly sets forth and segregates the type of conduct proscribed by the law. It contains specific sections on neglect, abandonment, and abuse. Each section contains its own definition. Section 40A-6-1(C), supra, defines abuse as conduct which: . . . consists of a person knowingly, intentionally, or negligently, and without justifiable cause, causing or permitting a child to be: “ ‘(1) placed in a situation that may endanger the child’s life or health; or “ ‘(2) tortured, cruelly confined or cruelly punished; or “ ‘(3) exposed to the inclemency of the weather. “ ‘Whoever commits abuse of a child is guilty of a fourth degree felony, unless the abuse results in the child’s death or great bodily harm, in which case he is guilty of a second degree felony.’ ” [Emphasis added.] “Reasonable adults of common intelligence would have no difficulty in ascertaining the type of conduct proscribed by the statute and the type not so restricted. Defendant’s contention, that because of its negligence requirement the statute covers any and all harm that might befall-the child, is without substance. State v. Lucero, 87 N.M. 242 , 531 P.2d 1215 (Ct. App. 1975), held that § 40A-6-1, supra, to be a strict liability statute. State v. Adams, 89 N.M. 737 , 557 P.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1976) sustained a conviction of child abuse resulting in death upon a negligence theory where the father had knowledge of the child abuse and failed to take any action to halt that ”
    3 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.