State v. Gallegos’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably State v. Jacobs (1985), State v. Garcia (1983)
6 district · 46 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 Hall v. Cole · United States v. Sutherland · State v. Bell · State v. Tanton · State v. Day
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client, (1) between the client and the client’s lawyer or his lawyer’s representative, or (2) between the client’s lawyer and the lawyer’s representative, or (3) by the client or client’s lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest, or (4) between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client, or (5) between lawyers representing the client.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“N.M.R.Evid. 803(3), provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ****** (3) Then existing mental, emotional or physical condition. A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification or terms of declarant’s will * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson“[t]he exclusion of “statements of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed” is necessary to avoid the virtual destruction of the hearsay rule which would otherwise result from allowing state of mind, provable by a hearsay statement, to serve as the basis for an inference of the happening of the event which produced the state of mind.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Canady
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.