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.
5 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Magbyred1 sentence2020See Magby, 1998-NMSC-042, ¶ 13 (recognizing that “[a]bsent express definition of a term in an instruction, words in jury instructions should usually be understood according to their ordinary meaning[,]” which may be found in “[l]ay dictionaries”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Duncangreen2 sentences1999Cf. Duncan, 111 N.M. at 355 , 805 P.2d at 622 (“The term ‘element’ when used with reference to a defense means a ‘constituent part’ of the defense ... [, and] is synonymous with the term requirement’[.]” (citations omitted)). 1999Cf. Duncan, 111 N.M. at 355 , 805 P.2d at 622 (“The term ‘element’ when used with reference to a defense means a ‘constituent part’ of the defense ... [, and] is synonymous with the term requirement’[.]” (citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Santillanes v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Cf. Santillanes, 115 N.M. at 220 , 849 P.2d at 363 (words in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning unless the Legislature has indicated a different intent); State v. Gonzales, 112 N.M. 544, 553 , 817 P.2d 1186, 1195 (1991) (noting that words used in their ordinary sense in jury instructions generally do not require express definition). 1998Cf. Santillanes, 115 N.M. at 220 , 849 P.2d at 363 (words in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning unless the Legislature has indicated a different intent); State v. Gonzales, 112 N.M. 544, 553 , 817 P.2d 1186, 1195 (1991) (noting that words used in their ordinary sense in jury instructions generally do not require express definition). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences1998Cf. Santillanes, 115 N.M. at 220 , 849 P.2d at 363 (words in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning unless the Legislature has indicated a different intent); State v. Gonzales, 112 N.M. 544, 553 , 817 P.2d 1186, 1195 (1991) (noting that words used in their ordinary sense in jury instructions generally do not require express definition). 1998Cf. Santillanes, 115 N.M. at 220 , 849 P.2d at 363 (words in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning unless the Legislature has indicated a different intent); State v. Gonzales, 112 N.M. 544, 553 , 817 P.2d 1186, 1195 (1991) (noting that words used in their ordinary sense in jury instructions generally do not require express definition). | 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 v. Rojo
green
2 sentences2019In exercising this discretion, the district court prohibited defense counsel from using a specific term but allowed defense counsel to argue “whatever [he] want[ed] to with regard to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what [Deputy] Padilla did.” Defendant fails to show how the district court’s ruling was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.” State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019In exercising this discretion, the district court prohibited defense counsel from using a specific term but allowed defense counsel to argue “whatever [he] want[ed] to with regard to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of what [Deputy] Padilla did.” Defendant fails to show how the district court’s ruling was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.” State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Grant v. Schmidt
green
1 sentence1915To a decree so entered, the fiction of law by which a term of court is held to be an entirety, or one session, so that all judgments, unless otherwise specially ordered, are deemed to be rendered as of the last day of the term, and until th.e final adjournment to be within the control of the court, does hot apply.” In Grant v. Schmidt, 22 Minn. 1 , the court, after speaking of the term rule at common law, says: “This theory is not retained under the present practice. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.