CITY OF AZTEC v. Gurule (2010)

See City of Aztec v. Gurule, 2010-NMSC-006, ¶ 6 , 147 N.M. 693 , 228 P.3d 477 (“A court has discretion to take judicial notice sua sponte, but must take judicial notice if requested by a party and that party has furnished the court with the information necessary.” (citation omitted)). {26} New Mexico precedent on the taking of judicial notice by a district court of proceedings or judgments in other cases litigated in the same court is not as open and shut as the State sugges…

See City of Aztec v. Gurule, 2010-NMSC-006, ¶ 6 , 147 N.M. 693 , 228 P.3d 477 (“Our rules of evidence permit trial courts to take judicial notice of ‘adjudicative facts,’ Rule 11-201(A) . . . , which are simply the facts of the particular case.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

See City of Aztec v. Gurule, 2010-NMSC-006 , 147 N.M. 693 , 228 P.3d 477 (“Our rules of evidence permit trial courts to take judicial notice of ‘adjudicative facts,’ Rule 11-201(A) NMRA, which are ‘simply the facts of the particular case.’ ”).

See Env’t Control, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, 2002- NMCA-003, ¶ 6, 131 N.M. 450 , 38 P.3d 891 (“In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA . . . , we take the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as true and test the legal sufficiency of the claims.”); see also City of Aztec v. Gurule, 2010-NMSC-006, ¶ 21 , 147 N.M. 693 , 228 P.3d 477 (“[M]unicipal ordinances are properly categorized as law which may be judicially noticed …

See, e.g., City of Aztec v. Gurule, 2010-NMSC-006 , ¶ 9, 147 N.M. 693 , 228 P.3d 477 (taking judicial notice of a municipal ordinance); State v. Yanez, 89 N.M. 397, 398 , 553 P.2d 252, 253 (Ct. App. 1976) (taking judicial notice of the fact that morphine is an opium derivative).

See City of Aztec v. Gurule, 2010-NMSC-006 , 13 ¶ 7, 147 N.M. 693 , 228 P.3d 477 (stating that when a court takes judicial notice of a 14 fact, it must do so on the record).