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.
7 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1944–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Roygreen2 sentences2025Ammerman, 1976-NMSC-031 , ¶ 15; see also State v. 7 1 Roy, 1936-NMSC-048 , ¶ 93, 40 N.M. 397 , 60 P.2d 646 (“[T]he power to provide 2 rules of pleading, practice, and procedure for the conduct of litigation in the district 3 courts, as well as rules of appellate procedure, is lodged in this court by the 4 Constitution of New Mexico.”); Sw. 2025Ammerman, 1976-NMSC-031 , ¶ 15; see also State v. 7 1 Roy, 1936-NMSC-048 , ¶ 93, 40 N.M. 397 , 60 P.2d 646 (“[T]he power to provide 2 rules of pleading, practice, and procedure for the conduct of litigation in the district 3 courts, as well as rules of appellate procedure, is lodged in this court by the 4 Constitution of New Mexico.”); Sw. | 2 | 2 |
Unite New Mexico v. Olivergreen1 sentence2021“This Court has never insisted upon a technical approach to the application of mandamus where there is involved a question of great public import and where other remedies might be inadequate to address that question.” Clark, 1995-NMSC-048 , ¶ 18 (brackets omitted) (ellipsis omitted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see, e.g., Unite N.M. v. Oliver, 2019-NMSC-009 , ¶ 2, 438 P.3d 343 (determining that mandamus was proper solely because the issue involved the separation of powers under Article III, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
PNM Gas Services v. New Mexico Public Utility Commissiongreen2 sentences2010See City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, ¶ 12 , 139 N.M. 381 , 133 P.3d 271 (stating that if the Legislature had wished to include additional language in a statute, it could have done so); see also In re Petition of PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012 , ¶ 73, 129 N.M. 1 , 1 P.3d 383 (presuming that the Legislature is aware of existing law, including agency rules); Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (presuming that the Legislature is well informed about existing common law when they enacted a statute). {29} This gap between the Legislature’s grant of authority to the 2010See City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, ¶ 12 , 139 N.M. 381 , 133 P.3d 271 (stating that if the Legislature had wished to include additional language in a statute, it could have done so); see also In re Petition of PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012 , ¶ 73, 129 N.M. 1 , 1 P.3d 383 (presuming that the Legislature is aware of existing law, including agency rules); Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (presuming that the Legislature is well informed about existing common law when they enacted a statute). {29} This gap between the Legislature’s grant of authority to the | 1 | 1 |
City of Roswell v. Smithgreen2 sentences2010See City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, ¶ 12 , 139 N.M. 381 , 133 P.3d 271 (stating that if the Legislature had wished to include additional language in a statute, it could have done so); see also In re Petition of PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012 , ¶ 73, 129 N.M. 1 , 1 P.3d 383 (presuming that the Legislature is aware of existing law, including agency rules); Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (presuming that the Legislature is well informed about existing common law when they enacted a statute). {29} This gap between the Legislature’s grant of authority to the 2010See City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, ¶ 12 , 139 N.M. 381 , 133 P.3d 271 (stating that if the Legislature had wished to include additional language in a statute, it could have done so); see also In re Petition of PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012 , ¶ 73, 129 N.M. 1 , 1 P.3d 383 (presuming that the Legislature is aware of existing law, including agency rules); Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (presuming that the Legislature is well informed about existing common law when they enacted a statute). {29} This gap between the Legislature’s grant of authority to the | 1 | 1 |
Wylie Corp. v. Mowrergreen2 sentences1996See Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 104 N.M. 751, 752-53 , 726 P.2d 1381, 1382-83 (1986) (upholding constitutionality of WCA), overruling State ex rel. 1996See Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 104 N.M. 751, 752-53 , 726 P.2d 1381, 1382-83 (1986) (upholding constitutionality of WCA), overruling State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Southwest Underwriters v. Montoyagreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 418-423 , 60 P.2d 646, 659-62 (1936); Southwest Underwriters v. Montoya, 80 N.M. 107, 108 , 452 P.2d 176, 177 (1969). 1990See, e.g., State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 418-423 , 60 P.2d 646, 659-62 (1936); Southwest Underwriters v. Montoya, 80 N.M. 107, 108 , 452 P.2d 176, 177 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Opinion to the House of Representativesgreen2 sentences1944See In re Opinion of the Justices, 67 R.I. 465 , 25 A.2d 360 , 140 A.L.R. 1096 . 1944See In re Opinion of the Justices, 67 R.I. 465 , 25 A.2d 360 , 140 A.L.R. 1096 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Advisory Comm. to the N.M. Compilation Comm'n
green
2 sentences2021League of Women Voters of N.M. v. Advisory Comm. to the N.M. Compilation Comm’n, 2017-NMSC-025, ¶ 10 , 401 P.3d 734 (analyzing the propriety of mandamus only for whether the question presented a purely legal issue involving a fundamental constitutional question of great public importance); State ex rel. 2021League of Women Voters of N.M. v. Advisory Comm. to the N.M. Compilation Comm’n, 2017-NMSC-025, ¶ 10 , 401 P.3d 734 (analyzing the propriety of mandamus only for whether the question presented a purely legal issue involving a fundamental constitutional question of great public importance); State ex rel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sims v. Sims
green
2 sentences2010See City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, ¶ 12 , 139 N.M. 381 , 133 P.3d 271 (stating that if the Legislature had wished to include additional language in a statute, it could have done so); see also In re Petition of PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012 , ¶ 73, 129 N.M. 1 , 1 P.3d 383 (presuming that the Legislature is aware of existing law, including agency rules); Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (presuming that the Legislature is well informed about existing common law when they enacted a statute). {29} This gap between the Legislature’s grant of authority to the 2010See City of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, ¶ 12 , 139 N.M. 381 , 133 P.3d 271 (stating that if the Legislature had wished to include additional language in a statute, it could have done so); see also In re Petition of PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012 , ¶ 73, 129 N.M. 1 , 1 P.3d 383 (presuming that the Legislature is aware of existing law, including agency rules); Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (presuming that the Legislature is well informed about existing common law when they enacted a statute). {29} This gap between the Legislature’s grant of authority to the | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2002Taylor v. Johnson, 1998-NMSC-015, ¶23 , 125 N.M. 343 , 961 P.2d 768 , we conclude that it is within the sole province of the Legislature to waive the State’s constitutional sovereign immunity. 2002Taylor v. Johnson, 1998-NMSC-015, ¶23 , 125 N.M. 343 , 961 P.2d 768 , we conclude that it is within the sole province of the Legislature to waive the State’s constitutional sovereign immunity. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State Ex Rel. Capitol Addition Bldg. Commission v. Connelly
green
2 sentences1944Aside from the fact that, except as prohibited, the legislature has plenary power to regulate the manner of voting (State v. Connelly, 39 N.M. 312 , 46 P.2d 1097 , 100 A.L.R. 878 ), the circumstance that confirmation of this legislative power appears in § 1 of Art. 7 after the framers in the first paragraph had finished describing the attributes of those who are entitled to vote, strongly indicates all this language means is that the legislature shall regulate the method and mechanics of voting by those who are otherwise qualified electors offering to vote in person. 1944Aside from the fact that, except as prohibited, the legislature has plenary power to regulate the manner of voting (State v. Connelly, 39 N.M. 312 , 46 P.2d 1097 , 100 A.L.R. 878 ), the circumstance that confirmation of this legislative power appears in § 1 of Art. 7 after the framers in the first paragraph had finished describing the attributes of those who are entitled to vote, strongly indicates all this language means is that the legislature shall regulate the method and mechanics of voting by those who are otherwise qualified electors offering to vote in person. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.