Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 N.M. 180 - State v. Orosco

State v. Orosco’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2020

2 district · 12 state decisions

4019821990200020102020decided

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 Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · Sealfon v. United States · Waller v. Florida · United States v. Oppenheimer

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

  1. ““Collateral estoppel” is an awkward phrase, but it stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. It means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.”
    2 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.