Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 N.M. 289 - State v. Vialpando

State v. Vialpando’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably State v. Simonson (1983), State v. Copeland (1986)

2 federal appellate · 80 state decisions

36019791980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · Gilbert v. California · Kirby v. Illinois · State v. Bell

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

  1. “[TJhis court has ruled that an offer to admonish, even though declined, is sufficient to support denial of a motion for mistrial. State v. Carlton, 83 N.M. 644 , 495 P.2d 1091 (Ct.App.1972).... The trial court would be placed in the intolerable position of never being able to cure unwanted and spontaneous errors in testimony if we held that defendant could control the trial’s progress by refusing to permit a possibly-curative admonition and yet rely on its absence to assert error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “At the trial, or at any hearing, any part or all of a deposition may be used as evidence if: (1) the witness is unavailable, as unavailability is defined in Paragraph (a) of Rule 804 of the Rules of Evidence ....”
    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.