Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 N.M. 1 - Montoya v. Anaconda Mining Co.

Montoya v. Anaconda Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
October 2005
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 2005 · most notably Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. v. North River Insurance (1998), Baca v. Bueno Foods (1988)

51 state decisions

290198119902000decided

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 Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. · Perea v. Baca · Chavez v. Chenoweth · Garcia v. Genuine Parts Co. · Krupiak v. Payton

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

  1. “[W]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action * * * the court may enter a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. In the absence of such determination, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A. After injury, and continuing as long as medical or surgical attention is reasonably necessary, the employer shall furnish all reasonable surgical, physical rehabilitation services, medical, osteopathic, chiropractic, dental, optometry and hospital services and medicine unless the workman refuses to allow them to be so furnished. B. In case the employer has made provision for, and has at the service of the workman at the time of the accident, adequate * * * medical facilities and attention and offers to furnish these services during the period necessary, then the employer shall be under no obligation to furnish additional * * * medical ... services or medicine than those so provided * * *. [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “If the employer has sufficient knowledge of the injury to be aware that medical treatment is necessary, he has the affirmative and continuing duty to supply medical treatment that is prompt, in compliance with the statutory prescription on choice of doctors, and adequate; if the employer fails to do so, the claimant may make suitable independent arrangements at the employer’s expense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.