Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 N.M. 28 - State v. Hernandez

State v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
January 2003
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2003

21 state decisions

180198119902000decided

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. Murray · State v. Crespin · State v. Gardner · State v. Sanchez · State v. Tafoya

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

  1. “Although defendant’s whereabouts could have been known if probation and police authorities had proceeded with reasonable diligence, this does not require a holding, as a matter of law, that the probation violation had been waived. Before waiver can occur, the delay must have been unreasonable. Just as reasonable diligence is a factual matter, so is unreasonable delay. Only when these factual matters have been determined can waiver be decided as a matter of law. Reasonable diligence involves the activities of probation and law enforcement personnel. Delay, to be unreasonable, involves not only the time involved, but the effect of the delay upon defendant. [Citations omitted.] Thus, State v. Brown, 95 N.M. 3 , 617 P.2d 1324 (Ct.App.1980) and State v. Sanchez, 94 N.M. 521 , 612 P.2d 1332 (Ct.App.1980), in discussing delay, considered whether defendant had been prejudiced.”
    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.