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 1998–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jordan v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2019The temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ 5 claims represent the time period between our Supreme Court’s issuance of 6 Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 16-20 , 135 N.M. 681 , 92 7 P.3d 1255 (prospectively requiring disclosure of premium prices as part of every 8 New Mexico UM sales transaction to enable insureds to make “knowing and 9 intelligent” decisions about UM coverage), and its issuance some seven years later 10 of separate opinions in two companion cases, Progressive Northwestern Insurance 11 Co. v. Weed Warrior Services, 2010-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 , 149 N.M. 157 , 245 P.3d 1 2019The temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ 5 claims represent the time period between our Supreme Court’s issuance of 6 Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 16-20 , 135 N.M. 681 , 92 7 P.3d 1255 (prospectively requiring disclosure of premium prices as part of every 8 New Mexico UM sales transaction to enable insureds to make “knowing and 9 intelligent” decisions about UM coverage), and its issuance some seven years later 10 of separate opinions in two companion cases, Progressive Northwestern Insurance 11 Co. v. Weed Warrior Services, 2010-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 , 149 N.M. 157 , 245 P.3d 1 | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2015Motors Corp., 1998-NMCA-020, ¶ 23 , 124 N.M. 606 , 953 P.2d 1104 (recognizing that Section 57-12-10(B) authorizes the recovery of “statutory damages one hundred dollars” if such a recovery would be greater than the actual damages). 2015Motors Corp., 1998-NMCA-020, ¶ 23 , 124 N.M. 606 , 953 P.2d 1104 (recognizing that Section 57-12-10(B) authorizes the recovery of “statutory damages one hundred dollars” if such a recovery would be greater than the actual damages). | 1 | 2 |
Hicks v. Ellergreen1 sentence2019See Hicks, 2012-NMCA-061 , ¶¶ 20- 21. {35} Finally, the thrust of GandyDancer’s argument rests upon dicta from Page & Wirtz, where this Court speculated that the broad language of Section 57-12-10(B) could theoretically include damages “suffered either by a consumer of goods or services, or the commercial competitor of an enterprise engaged in deceptive trade practices.” Page & Wirtz, 1990-NMSC-063 , ¶ 22. | 1 | 1 |
Naranjo v. Paullgreen2 sentences1999See Naranjo v. Paull, 111 N.M. 165, 172 , 803 P.2d 254, 261 (Ct.App.1990) (punitive damages not available under New Mexico Securities Act despite statutory language similar to that in Section 57-12-10(D)). {14} Here, the jury failed to find a factual basis for any punitive damages other than those available under the UPA. 1999See Naranjo v. Paull, 111 N.M. 165, 172 , 803 P.2d 254, 261 (Ct.App.1990) (punitive damages not available under New Mexico Securities Act despite statutory language similar to that in Section 57-12-10(D)). {14} Here, the jury failed to find a factual basis for any punitive damages other than those available under the UPA. | 1 | 1 |
Page & Wirtz Construction Co. v. Solomonred2 sentences1998Section 57-12-10(B) authorizes the recovery of “actual damages or the sum of one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is greater.” In Page & Wirtz Construction Co. v. Solomon, 110 N.M. 206, 212 , 794 P.2d 349, 355 (1990) (citing § 57-12-10(B)), the Supreme Court held that if a plaintiff produces no evidence showing loss of money or property, “recovery is limited to one hundred dollars, which may be trebled by the court when the party willfully has engaged in the unfair or deceptive practice.” Thus, Plaintiff was only required to put on evidence of his actual losses as it pertained to recovery of 1998Section 57-12-10(B) authorizes the recovery of “actual damages or the sum of one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is greater.” In Page & Wirtz Construction Co. v. Solomon, 110 N.M. 206, 212 , 794 P.2d 349, 355 (1990) (citing § 57-12-10(B)), the Supreme Court held that if a plaintiff produces no evidence showing loss of money or property, “recovery is limited to one hundred dollars, which may be trebled by the court when the party willfully has engaged in the unfair or deceptive practice.” Thus, Plaintiff was only required to put on evidence of his actual losses as it pertained to recovery of | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Progressive Northwestern Insurance v. Weed Warrior Services
green
2 sentences2019The temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ 5 claims represent the time period between our Supreme Court’s issuance of 6 Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 16-20 , 135 N.M. 681 , 92 7 P.3d 1255 (prospectively requiring disclosure of premium prices as part of every 8 New Mexico UM sales transaction to enable insureds to make “knowing and 9 intelligent” decisions about UM coverage), and its issuance some seven years later 10 of separate opinions in two companion cases, Progressive Northwestern Insurance 11 Co. v. Weed Warrior Services, 2010-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 , 149 N.M. 157 , 245 P.3d 1 2019The temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ 5 claims represent the time period between our Supreme Court’s issuance of 6 Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 16-20 , 135 N.M. 681 , 92 7 P.3d 1255 (prospectively requiring disclosure of premium prices as part of every 8 New Mexico UM sales transaction to enable insureds to make “knowing and 9 intelligent” decisions about UM coverage), and its issuance some seven years later 10 of separate opinions in two companion cases, Progressive Northwestern Insurance 11 Co. v. Weed Warrior Services, 2010-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 , 149 N.M. 157 , 245 P.3d 1 | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences2019The temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ 5 claims represent the time period between our Supreme Court’s issuance of 6 Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 16-20 , 135 N.M. 681 , 92 7 P.3d 1255 (prospectively requiring disclosure of premium prices as part of every 8 New Mexico UM sales transaction to enable insureds to make “knowing and 9 intelligent” decisions about UM coverage), and its issuance some seven years later 10 of separate opinions in two companion cases, Progressive Northwestern Insurance 11 Co. v. Weed Warrior Services, 2010-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 , 149 N.M. 157 , 245 P.3d 1 2019The temporal boundaries of Plaintiffs’ 5 claims represent the time period between our Supreme Court’s issuance of 6 Montano v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 16-20 , 135 N.M. 681 , 92 7 P.3d 1255 (prospectively requiring disclosure of premium prices as part of every 8 New Mexico UM sales transaction to enable insureds to make “knowing and 9 intelligent” decisions about UM coverage), and its issuance some seven years later 10 of separate opinions in two companion cases, Progressive Northwestern Insurance 11 Co. v. Weed Warrior Services, 2010-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 , 149 N.M. 157 , 245 P.3d 1 | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Kreutzer v. Aldo Leopold High School
green
1 sentence2019Of these two cases, only Lohman involved a putative class action, and the analysis in both Lohman and Page & Wirtz focused on interpreting Section 57-12-10(B), and not Section 57-12- 10(E). {18} Nor does Plaintiffs’ reliance on the UPA’s “remedial purpose” justify an interpretation of Section 57-12-10(E) that allows recovery of statutory damages by class members, a construction contrary to both the express limitation stated in the legislature’s chosen words, see Kreutzer v. Aldo Leopold High Sch., 2018-NMCA-005, ¶ 51 , 409 P.3d 930 (explaining that, even assuming a statute has a remedial purpo | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Pueblo of Picuris v. New Mexico Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department
green
1 sentence2019Of these two cases, only Lohman involved a putative 17 class action, and the analysis in both Lohman and Page & Wirtz focused on 18 interpreting Section 57-12-10(B), and not Section 57-12-10(E). 19 {18} Nor does Plaintiffs’ reliance on the UPA’s “remedial purpose” justify an 20 interpretation of Section 57-12-10(E) that allows recovery of statutory damages by 14 1 class members, a construction contrary to both the express limitation stated in the 2 legislature’s chosen words, see Kreutzer v. Aldo Leopold High Sch., 2018-NMCA- 3 005, ¶ 51, 409 P.3d 930 (explaining that, even assuming a statute | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.