procedural due process claim in New Mexico

38 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 14 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (22)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bd. of Educ. of Carlsbad v. Harrellgreen nm · 1994 · cited in 9 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2011–2024 2 sentences 2013Schs. v. Harrell, 118 N.M. 470, 477 , 882 P.2d 511, 518 (1994) (“Before a procedural due process claim may be asserted, the plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a legitimate liberty or property interest . . . .” (emphasis added)); Barreras v. N.M. 2013Schs. v. Harrell, 118 N.M. 470, 477 , 882 P.2d 511, 518 (1994) (“Before a procedural due process claim may be asserted, the plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a legitimate liberty or property interest . . . .” (emphasis added)); Barreras v. N.M.	4	9
Barreras v. New Mexico Corrections Departmentgreen nm · 1992 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1994–2025 2 sentences 2025Dep’t, 1992-NMSC-059 , ¶ 18, 114 N.M. 12 366, 838 P.2d 983 (“[T]o assert a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth 13 Amendment, a plaintiff must establish deprivation of a legitimate liberty or property 14 interest.”). 2013Dep’t, 114 N.M. 366, 370 , 838 P.2d 983, 987 (1992) (“In order to assert a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish deprivation of a legitimate liberty or property interest. . . .” (emphasis added)); Moongate Water Co. v. State, 120 N.M. 399, 404 , 902 P.2d 554, 559 (Ct. App. 1995) (In order to prevail on a substantive due process claim, the plaintiff “must establish that its property interests were injured by governmental action that shocks the conscience.” (emphasis added)).	3	4
Moongate Water Co., Inc. v. Stategreen nmctapp · 1995 · cited in 3 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2013 2 sentences 2013Dep’t, 114 N.M. 366, 370 , 838 P.2d 983, 987 (1992) (“In order to assert a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish deprivation of a legitimate liberty or property interest. . . .” (emphasis added)); Moongate Water Co. v. State, 120 N.M. 399, 404 , 902 P.2d 554, 559 (Ct. App. 1995) (In order to prevail on a substantive due process claim, the plaintiff “must establish that its property interests were injured by governmental action that shocks the conscience.” (emphasis added)). 2013Dep’t, 114 N.M. 366, 370 , 838 P.2d 983, 987 (1992) (“In order to assert a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish deprivation of a legitimate liberty or property interest. . . .” (emphasis added)); Moongate Water Co. v. State, 120 N.M. 399, 404 , 902 P.2d 554, 559 (Ct. App. 1995) (In order to prevail on a substantive due process claim, the plaintiff “must establish that its property interests were injured by governmental action that shocks the conscience.” (emphasis added)).	3	3
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 3 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2023 2 sentences 2023To determine whether there were adequate procedural safeguards, we must engage in a factually- intensive and policy-driven balancing “of private and government interest, including concerns about ‘the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). 2023Dep’t v. John R., 2009-NMCA-025, ¶ 27 , 145 N.M. 636 , 203 P.3d 167 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} Mother raises a procedural due process claim,2 and “[w]e evaluate whether a termination proceeding satisfies due process using the balancing test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 . . . (1976).” Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, ¶ 23 .	2	3
Tri-State Generation & Transmission. Ass'n. v. D'Antoniogreen nm · 2012 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026 2 sentences 2026See Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v. D’Antonio, 2012-NMSC-039, ¶ 37 , 289 P.3d 1232 (“In order to assert a procedural due process claim . . . , a plaintiff must establish deprivation of a legitimate liberty or property interest and that [they were] not afforded adequate procedural protections.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 2013“In order to assert a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must 16 establish deprivation of a legitimate liberty or property interest and that he was not 17 afforded adequate procedural protections.” Tri-State Generation, 2012-NMSC-039 , 18 ¶ 37 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 9 1 {14} As previously discussed, the undisputed facts established that Intervenors were 2 deprived of a validly claimed ownership interest.	1	2
Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompsongreen scotus · 1989 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2024 2 sentences 2024See id. {9} The crux of this dispute lies in the first step of the procedural due process inquiry, the nature and scope of the liberty interest created by the LSA provision. 2004As a result, the defendant's attack on the classification at issue, the Court held, "must ultimately be analyzed in terms of substantive, not procedural, due process." Id. at 1165 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 120-21 , 109 S.Ct. 2333 , 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (explaining that the illegitimacy of certain legislative irrebuttable presumptions did not rest on procedural due process, but rather on "the adequacy of the `fit' between the classification and the policy that the classification serves," in rejecting the assertion of a proc	1	2
Hewitt v. Helmsred scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024A liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “may arise from two sources⸻the Due Process Clause itself and the laws of the [s]tate[].” Cordova v. LeMaster, 2004-NMSC-026, ¶ 18 , 136 N.M. 217 , 96 P.3d 778 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983)).	1	1
State v. Salasgreen nmctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See State v. Salas, 2017-NMCA-057, ¶ 42 , 400 P.3d 251 (“This Court reviews due process claims de novo.”). {12} A procedural due process claim requires us to “analyze whether there exist adequate procedures to assure that all the process that is constitutionally due has been provided before the final deprivation of a protected interest through [s]tate action.” State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 47 , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 .	1	1
State v. Druktenisgreen nmctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023See State v. Salas, 2017-NMCA-057, ¶ 42 , 400 P.3d 251 (“This Court reviews due process claims de novo.”). {12} A procedural due process claim requires us to “analyze whether there exist adequate procedures to assure that all the process that is constitutionally due has been provided before the final deprivation of a protected interest through [s]tate action.” State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 47 , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 . 2023See State v. Salas, 2017-NMCA-057, ¶ 42 , 400 P.3d 251 (“This Court reviews due process claims de novo.”). {12} A procedural due process claim requires us to “analyze whether there exist adequate procedures to assure that all the process that is constitutionally due has been provided before the final deprivation of a protected interest through [s]tate action.” State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 47 , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 .	1	1
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commissiongreen nm · 2010 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See ABCWUA, 2010-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 27, 31 (rejecting a procedural due process challenge to an expedited procedural schedule imposed by the Commission, where the agency twice “extend[ed] the time period in which [appellants] were required to file their responsive testimony”).	1	1
Rocky Mountain Materials & Asphalt, Inc. v. The Board Of County Commissioners Of El Paso Countygreen ca10 · 1992 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009Id. at 311 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	1	1
Gomes v. Woodgreen ca10 · 2006 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d 1122, 1131 (10th Cir.2006) (stating that “when a procedural due process violation occurs and adverse action results, damages for injuries caused by the adverse action may not be recovered if the defendant can prove the action would have been taken even absent the violation” (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 260 , 98 S.Ct. 1042 , 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (emphasis added))). 8 .	1	1
Carey v. Piphusgreen scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d 1122, 1131 (10th Cir.2006) (stating that “when a procedural due process violation occurs and adverse action results, damages for injuries caused by the adverse action may not be recovered if the defendant can prove the action would have been taken even absent the violation” (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 260 , 98 S.Ct. 1042 , 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (emphasis added))). 8 . 2008See, e.g., Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d 1122, 1131 (10th Cir.2006) (stating that “when a procedural due process violation occurs and adverse action results, damages for injuries caused by the adverse action may not be recovered if the defendant can prove the action would have been taken even absent the violation” (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 260 , 98 S.Ct. 1042 , 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (emphasis added))). 8 .	1	1
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Maria C.green nmctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007See Maria C., 2004-NMCA-083, ¶ 37 (stating that a respondent making a procedural due process challenge “need only demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome might have been different”).	1	1
Hughes Anderson Bagley, Jr., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Russell Rogerson and Patsy Bozarth, Appellants/cross-Appelleesgreen ca8 · 1993 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
Lawrence v. City of Rawlins, WYgreen ca10 · 2005 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
Gonzales v. City of Castle Rockgreen ca10 · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivorsgreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
In Re DRgreen illappct · 2003 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	1	1
Michael H. v. Gerald D.green scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	1	1
Black v. Snowgreen dcd · 2003 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	1	1
State v. Radkegreen wisctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (25)

Case	Cited	Years
Titus v. City of Albuquerque green nmctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2024“Before a procedural due process claim may be asserted, the plaintiff must establish that [(1) they were] deprived of a legitimate liberty or property interest and that [(2) they were] not afforded adequate procedural protections in connection with the deprivation.” Titus, 2011-NMCA-038, ¶ 40 . 2021“Before a procedural due process claim may be asserted, the plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a legitimate liberty or property interest and that he was not afforded adequate procedural protections in connection with the deprivation.” Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 2011-NMCA-038, ¶ 40 , 149 N.M. 556 , 252 P.3d 780 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	3	2014–2024
Titus v. City of Albuquerque green nmctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2021“Before a procedural due process claim may be asserted, the plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a legitimate liberty or property interest and that he was not afforded adequate procedural protections in connection with the deprivation.” Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 2011-NMCA-038, ¶ 40 , 149 N.M. 556 , 252 P.3d 780 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2014Titus v. City of Albuquerque, 2011-NMCA- 10 038, ¶ 43, 149 N.M. 556 , 252 P.3d 780 .	2	2014–2021
Starko, Inc. v. Gallegos green nmctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2012Starko II, 2006-NMCA-085, ¶ 29 . 2011Starko II, 2006-NMCA-085, ¶ 29 , 140 N.M. 136 , 140 P.3d 1085 .	2	2011–2012
Wagner v. AGW CONSULTANTS green nm · 2005 2 sentences 2008It is not within the scope of our review in this interlocutory appeal, and we decline to address it as part of Owners' equal protection arguments. {20} Under rational basis review, a statute will be upheld "unless the challenger can show the provision at issue is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose." Wagner, 2005-NMSC-016, ¶ 12 , 137 N.M. 734 , 114 P.3d 1050 . 2008It is not within the scope of our review in this interlocutory appeal, and we decline to address it as part of Owners' equal protection arguments. {20} Under rational basis review, a statute will be upheld "unless the challenger can show the provision at issue is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose." Wagner, 2005-NMSC-016, ¶ 12 , 137 N.M. 734 , 114 P.3d 1050 .	2	2008–2008
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 2004His concurrence also suggests that Connecticut v. Doe 's approach places into question the continuing vitality of Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 , 89 S.Ct. 1843 , 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969). 2004His concurrence also suggests that Connecticut v. Doe 's approach places into question the continuing vitality of Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 , 89 S.Ct. 1843 , 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969).	2	1992–2004
Redman v. BD. OF REGENTS OF NEW MEXICO green nmctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1992Petitioner relies on Sheets v. Johnson, 805 F.2d 767 (1986), rev’d on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1987), and Redman v. Board of Regents of New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped, 102 N.M. 234 , 693 P.2d 1266 (Ct.App.1984), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 225 , 693 P.2d 591 (1985), in support of this contention. 1992Petitioner relies on Sheets v. Johnson, 805 F.2d 767 (1986), rev’d on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1987), and Redman v. Board of Regents of New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped, 102 N.M. 234 , 693 P.2d 1266 (Ct.App.1984), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 225 , 693 P.2d 591 (1985), in support of this contention.	2	1992–1992
Skeets v. Johnson green ca8 · 1986 2 sentences 1992Petitioner relies on Skeets v. Johnson, 805 F.2d 767 (1986), rev'd on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir.1987), and Redman v. Board of Regents of New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped, 102 N.M. 234 , 693 P.2d 1266 (Ct.App. 1984), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 225 , 693 P.2d 591 (1985), in support of this contention. 1992Petitioner relies on Sheets v. Johnson, 805 F.2d 767 (1986), rev’d on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1987), and Redman v. Board of Regents of New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped, 102 N.M. 234 , 693 P.2d 1266 (Ct.App.1984), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 225 , 693 P.2d 591 (1985), in support of this contention.	2	1992–1992
Skeets v. Johnson green ca8 · 1987 2 sentences 1992Petitioner relies on Skeets v. Johnson, 805 F.2d 767 (1986), rev'd on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir.1987), and Redman v. Board of Regents of New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped, 102 N.M. 234 , 693 P.2d 1266 (Ct.App. 1984), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 225 , 693 P.2d 591 (1985), in support of this contention. 1992Petitioner relies on Sheets v. Johnson, 805 F.2d 767 (1986), rev’d on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1987), and Redman v. Board of Regents of New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped, 102 N.M. 234 , 693 P.2d 1266 (Ct.App.1984), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 225 , 693 P.2d 591 (1985), in support of this contention.	2	1992–1992
State v. Houidobre green nm · 2024 2 sentences 2025This consolidated 4 case implicates procedural due process. 5 {26} “A procedural due process inquiry is a two-step analysis.” State v. Houidobre, 6 2025-NMSC-007, ¶ 8 , 563 P.3d 890 . 2025This consolidated 4 case implicates procedural due process. 5 {26} “A procedural due process inquiry is a two-step analysis.” State v. Houidobre, 6 2025-NMSC-007, ¶ 8 , 563 P.3d 890 .	1	2025–2025
Cordova v. LeMaster green nm · 2004 2 sentences 2024A liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “may arise from two sources⸻the Due Process Clause itself and the laws of the [s]tate[].” Cordova v. LeMaster, 2004-NMSC-026, ¶ 18 , 136 N.M. 217 , 96 P.3d 778 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983)). 2024A liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “may arise from two sources⸻the Due Process Clause itself and the laws of the [s]tate[].” Cordova v. LeMaster, 2004-NMSC-026, ¶ 18 , 136 N.M. 217 , 96 P.3d 778 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983)).	1	2024–2024
Rayellen Res., Inc. v. N.M. Cultural Props. Review Comm. green nm · 2014 1 sentence 2024Comm., 2014-NMSC-006, ¶ 18 , 319 P.3d 639 . 11 To succeed on a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) they 12 were “depriv[ed] of a legitimate liberty or property interest” and (2) that they were 13 “not afforded adequate procedural protections.” Barreras v. N.M.	1	2024–2024
Woolwine v. Furr's, Inc. green nmctapp · 1987 1 sentence 2024We therefore limit our review to whether the metropolitan court otherwise deprived him of due process. omitted). “[P]rocedural due process is a flexible right and the amount of process due depends on the particular circumstances of each case.” Id. {18} “Before a procedural due process claim may be asserted, the plaintiff must establish that [they were] deprived of a legitimate liberty or property interest and that [they were] not afforded adequate procedural protections in connection with the deprivation.” Bd. of Educ. of Carlsbad Mun.	1	2024–2024
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Brandy S. green nmctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2023Dep’t v. John R., 2009-NMCA-025, ¶ 27 , 145 N.M. 636 , 203 P.3d 167 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} Mother raises a procedural due process claim,2 and “[w]e evaluate whether a termination proceeding satisfies due process using the balancing test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 . . . (1976).” Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, ¶ 23 . 2023“The Mathews test requires the weighing of [the parent’s] interest; the risk to [the parent] of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and the government’s interest.” Id. “[T]he decisive issue centers on the second factor of the Mathews test,” that is, whether the procedures used increased the risk of erroneous deprivation of a parent’s interest in parenting her children, and whether additional procedural safeguards would eliminate or lower that risk.	1	2023–2023
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. John R. green nmctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2023Dep’t v. John R., 2009-NMCA-025, ¶ 27 , 145 N.M. 636 , 203 P.3d 167 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} Mother raises a procedural due process claim,2 and “[w]e evaluate whether a termination proceeding satisfies due process using the balancing test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 . . . (1976).” Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, ¶ 23 . 2023Dep’t v. John R., 2009-NMCA-025, ¶ 27 , 145 N.M. 636 , 203 P.3d 167 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} Mother raises a procedural due process claim,2 and “[w]e evaluate whether a termination proceeding satisfies due process using the balancing test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 . . . (1976).” Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, ¶ 23 .	1	2023–2023
STATE OF NM EX REL. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT v. John R. neutral nmctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2023Dep’t v. John R., 2009-NMCA-025, ¶ 27 , 145 N.M. 636 , 203 P.3d 167 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} Mother raises a procedural due process claim,2 and “[w]e evaluate whether a termination proceeding satisfies due process using the balancing test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 . . . (1976).” Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, ¶ 23 .	1	2023–2023
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill green scotus · 1985	1	2006–2006
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales green scotus · 2005	1	2006–2006
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. green scotus · 1982	1	2006–2006
Garcia v. Las Vegas Medical Center green nmctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2006In Garcia, 112 N.M. at 443-46 , 816 P.2d at 512-15 , this Court discussed Davis and implicitly rejected the notion that a violation of a state law (conferring a protected interest and serving as the predicate for a procedural due process claim) could constitute a per se violation of procedural due process. 2006In Garcia, 112 N.M. at 443-46 , 816 P.2d at 512-15 , this Court discussed Davis and implicitly rejected the notion that a violation of a state law (conferring a protected interest and serving as the predicate for a procedural due process claim) could constitute a per se violation of procedural due process.	1	2006–2006
Mieras v. Dyncorp green nmctapp · 1996	1	2005–2005
Foucha v. Louisiana green scotus · 1992	1	2004–2004
Jenkins v. McKeithen green scotus · 1969	1	2004–2004
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. green scotus · 1976	1	1998–1998
Zinermon v. Burch green scotus · 1990	1	1995–1995
Gussie Davis v. Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority green ca6 · 1984	1	1989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (14) USC § 42u.s.c.1988 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 39-3-1.1 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 26-3-3 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 27-2-12.6 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 27-2-16 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 3-18-17 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 44-6-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 62-11-5 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 104 (1976–2026) TX 74 (1979–2025) CA 66 (1963–2024) WI 55 (1972–2025) PA 52 (1958–2025) WA 51 (1976–2025) OH 46 (1991–2026) MN 40 (1986–2025) CT 38 (1976–2026) NM 38 (1989–2026) NJ 29 (1972–2026) MI 29 (1978–2025) CO 29 (1988–2026) KS 28 (2002–2026) FL 28 (1983–2025) IA 25 (1979–2022) ID 24 (1990–2024) ME 20 (1995–2024) IN 19 (1976–2026) MO 18 (1976–2019) NY 17 (1979–2026) AZ 16 (1981–2019) UT 14 (2004–2026) NH 13 (1987–2025) MA 13 (1992–2022) VA 13 (1971–2025) WV 13 (1978–2018) NC 11 (1984–2024) MS 11 (1997–2021) AL 11 (1989–2025) LA 11 (1972–2018) MD 11 (1999–2013) MT 10 (2000–2016) GA 10 (1995–2023) TN 9 (1998–2023) VT 9 (1999–2025) RI 9 (1994–2015) DE 8 (1989–2025) OK 8 (1982–2022) SC 8 (1997–2025) SD 8 (2001–2018) OR 7 (1999–2014) DC 6 (1982–2007) HI 6 (1982–2015) NV 5 (1995–2021) AR 5 (1999–2025) KY 4 (2012–2026) NE 4 (1989–2020) AK 4 (2013–2023) WY 3 (2006–2020) ND 2 (2019–2025) VI 2 (2015–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check