Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2021 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. Jeantettegreen2 sentences2020Id. {25} Here, the district court awarded attorney fees to Wife under Section 40-4-7(A), which provides in part that “[t]he court may make an order, relative to the expenses of the proceeding, as will ensure either party an efficient preparation and presentation of his case.” We have held that Section 40-4-7(A) supports a district court’s award of attorney fees, recognizing “that the central purpose of an award of attorney fees under Section 40-4-7(A) is to remedy any financial disparity between the divorcing parties so that each may make an efficient and effective presentation of his or her c 2020Id. {25} Here, the district court awarded attorney fees to Wife under Section 40-4-7(A), which provides in part that “[t]he court may make an order, relative to the expenses of the proceeding, as will ensure either party an efficient preparation and presentation of his case.” We have held that Section 40-4-7(A) supports a district court’s award of attorney fees, recognizing “that the central purpose of an award of attorney fees under Section 40-4-7(A) is to remedy any financial disparity between the divorcing parties so that each may make an efficient and effective presentation of his or her c | 1 | 5 |
Alverson v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2012“New Mexico law permits the 11 award of attorney fees on appeal in domestic relation cases.” Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 12 111 N.M. 319, 330 , 805 P.2d 88, 99 (Ct. App. 1990). 13 In the case before us, statutory authority exists for the award of attorney fees. 14 See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-7(A) (1997) (“The court may make an order, relative to the 15 expenses of the proceeding, as will ensure either party an efficient preparation and 16 presentation of his case.”); Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 19 , 134 N.M. 17 776, 82 P.3d 947 (stating that “the central purpose of an award of attorney fees under 2012“New Mexico law permits the 11 award of attorney fees on appeal in domestic relation cases.” Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 12 111 N.M. 319, 330 , 805 P.2d 88, 99 (Ct. App. 1990). 13 In the case before us, statutory authority exists for the award of attorney fees. 14 See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-7(A) (1997) (“The court may make an order, relative to the 15 expenses of the proceeding, as will ensure either party an efficient preparation and 16 presentation of his case.”); Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 19 , 134 N.M. 17 776, 82 P.3d 947 (stating that “the central purpose of an award of attorney fees under | 1 | 2 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 . 2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mondragonred2 sentences2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 . 2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 . | 1 | 1 |
Rhinehart v. Nowlingreen2 sentences2012“New Mexico law permits the 11 award of attorney fees on appeal in domestic relation cases.” Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 12 111 N.M. 319, 330 , 805 P.2d 88, 99 (Ct. App. 1990). 13 In the case before us, statutory authority exists for the award of attorney fees. 14 See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-7(A) (1997) (“The court may make an order, relative to the 15 expenses of the proceeding, as will ensure either party an efficient preparation and 16 presentation of his case.”); Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 19 , 134 N.M. 17 776, 82 P.3d 947 (stating that “the central purpose of an award of attorney fees under 2012“New Mexico law permits the 11 award of attorney fees on appeal in domestic relation cases.” Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 12 111 N.M. 319, 330 , 805 P.2d 88, 99 (Ct. App. 1990). 13 In the case before us, statutory authority exists for the award of attorney fees. 14 See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-7(A) (1997) (“The court may make an order, relative to the 15 expenses of the proceeding, as will ensure either party an efficient preparation and 16 presentation of his case.”); Garcia v. Jeantette, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶ 19 , 134 N.M. 17 776, 82 P.3d 947 (stating that “the central purpose of an award of attorney fees under | 1 | 1 |
Enriquez v. Cochrangreen2 sentences2010Also, he should have explained why he believed the 9 award was a sanction; why the district court’s decision was without logic or reason, 10 or clearly unable to be defended; why the sanction was inappropriate in light of the 11 nature of the conduct and level of culpability found by the district court; why the 12 district court’s findings and decision were not supported by substantial evidence; and 13 whether the district court considered alternatives to the sanctions ultimately imposed. 14 See Enriquez v. Cochran, 1998-NMCA-157, ¶¶ 20-21 , 126 N.M. 196 , 967 P.2d 1136 15 (describing the fact 2010Also, he should have explained why he believed the 9 award was a sanction; why the district court’s decision was without logic or reason, 10 or clearly unable to be defended; why the sanction was inappropriate in light of the 11 nature of the conduct and level of culpability found by the district court; why the 12 district court’s findings and decision were not supported by substantial evidence; and 13 whether the district court considered alternatives to the sanctions ultimately imposed. 14 See Enriquez v. Cochran, 1998-NMCA-157, ¶¶ 20-21 , 126 N.M. 196 , 967 P.2d 1136 15 (describing the fact | 1 | 1 |
Monsanto v. Monsantogreen2 sentences2003Quintana, 2002-NMCA-008, ¶ 33 , 131 N.M. 435 , 38 P.3d 203’ (“In determining whether to award attorney fees, a showing of economic disparity, the need of one party, and the ability of the other to pay, has been characterized as the primary test in New Mexico.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Alverson v. Harris, 1997-NMCA-024, ¶ 26 , 123 N.M. 153 , 935 P.2d 1165 (“The most important factor the trial court considers in deciding whether to award attorney fees is economic disparity between the parties.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Monsanto, 119 N.M. 2003Quintana, 2002-NMCA-008, ¶ 33 , 131 N.M. 435 , 38 P.3d 203’ (“In determining whether to award attorney fees, a showing of economic disparity, the need of one party, and the ability of the other to pay, has been characterized as the primary test in New Mexico.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Alverson v. Harris, 1997-NMCA-024, ¶ 26 , 123 N.M. 153 , 935 P.2d 1165 (“The most important factor the trial court considers in deciding whether to award attorney fees is economic disparity between the parties.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Monsanto, 119 N.M. | 1 | 1 |
Gilmore v. Gilmoregreen2 sentences1995Gilmore v. Gilmore, 106 N.M. 788, 792 , 750 P.2d 1114, 1118 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 16 , 751 P.2d 700 (1988). 1995Gilmore v. Gilmore, 106 N.M. 788, 792 , 750 P.2d 1114, 1118 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 16 , 751 P.2d 700 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quintana v. Eddins
green
2 sentences2020Further, the “primary test” to determine whether such an award is warranted is “a showing of economic disparity, the need of one party, and the ability of the other to pay[.]” Quintana v. Eddins, 2002- NMCA-008, ¶ 33, 131 N.M. 435 , 38 P.3d 203 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {26} Regarding Husband’s first argument—that Wife never filed a motion seeking attorney fees—we point to Wife’s motion for relief from judgment, filed on June 7, 2016, in which she moved for attorney fees. 2020Further, the “primary test” to determine whether such an award is warranted is “a showing of economic disparity, the need of one party, and the ability of the other to pay[.]” Quintana v. Eddins, 2002- NMCA-008, ¶ 33, 131 N.M. 435 , 38 P.3d 203 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {26} Regarding Husband’s first argument—that Wife never filed a motion seeking attorney fees—we point to Wife’s motion for relief from judgment, filed on June 7, 2016, in which she moved for attorney fees. | 3 | 2003–2020 |
Lisa Kramer, F/K/A Lisa Kastleman v. Bryan Kastleman
green
2 sentences2021Because Wife could receive less spousal support at a new trial than she initially received, or receive less if the court were permitted to modify the award, the exception to the benefit of the judgment rules does not apply. {20} Alternatively, Wife asks this Court to adopt a new exception to the benefit of the judgment rule known as the “economic-necessity exception.” In support of this proposition, Wife directs us to Kramer v. Kastleman, 508 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2017). {21} In Kramer, the Texas Supreme Court discussed the parameters of exceptions to the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine in the cont 2021Because Wife could receive less spousal support at a new trial than she initially received, or receive less if the court were permitted to modify the award, the exception to the benefit of the judgment rules does not apply. {20} Alternatively, Wife asks this Court to adopt a new exception to the benefit of the judgment rule known as the “economic-necessity exception.” In support of this proposition, Wife directs us to Kramer v. Kastleman, 508 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2017). {21} In Kramer, the Texas Supreme Court discussed the parameters of exceptions to the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine in the cont | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Michelson v. Michelson
green
1 sentence2020That statute provides that in a divorce proceeding, “[t]he court may make an order, relative to the expenses of the proceeding, as will ensure either party an efficient preparation and presentation of his case.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Herrera v. Herrera
green
1 sentence2012In Herrera, attorney fees were 5 awarded when a husband’s refusal to sign a marital settlement agreement led to 6 delays, including the filing of an appeal. 1999-NMCA-034, ¶¶ 19-20 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.