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.
27 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2025 4 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. Cerinogreen2 sentences2013That case, State v. Cerino, 117 P.3d 876, 878 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005), was premised on a federal constitutional analysis. 2013That case, State v. Cerino, 117 P.3d 876, 878 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005), was premised on a federal constitutional analysis. {19} We conclude that, in this circumstance, the result under the New Mexico Constitution is the same as under the United States Constitution. | 2 | 2 |
Swafford v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 , 7 n. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 , 1227 n. 3 (1991) (addressing defendant’s double jeopardy claim exclusively under the federal constitution where defendant used the term “double jeopardy” without reference to either the state or the federal double jeopardy clauses); see also State v. Vaughn, 2005-NMCA-076, ¶¶ 6-8 , 137 N.M. 674 , 114 P.3d 354 (applying a federal constitutional analysis where the defendant failed to preserve his state constitutional claim). {19} “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both successive prosecutions and mu 2007See Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 , 7 n. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 , 1227 n. 3 (1991) (addressing defendant’s double jeopardy claim exclusively under the federal constitution where defendant used the term “double jeopardy” without reference to either the state or the federal double jeopardy clauses); see also State v. Vaughn, 2005-NMCA-076, ¶¶ 6-8 , 137 N.M. 674 , 114 P.3d 354 (applying a federal constitutional analysis where the defendant failed to preserve his state constitutional claim). {19} “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both successive prosecutions and mu | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vaughngreen2 sentences2007See Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 , 7 n. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 , 1227 n. 3 (1991) (addressing defendant’s double jeopardy claim exclusively under the federal constitution where defendant used the term “double jeopardy” without reference to either the state or the federal double jeopardy clauses); see also State v. Vaughn, 2005-NMCA-076, ¶¶ 6-8 , 137 N.M. 674 , 114 P.3d 354 (applying a federal constitutional analysis where the defendant failed to preserve his state constitutional claim). {19} “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both successive prosecutions and mu 2007See Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 , 7 n. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 , 1227 n. 3 (1991) (addressing defendant’s double jeopardy claim exclusively under the federal constitution where defendant used the term “double jeopardy” without reference to either the state or the federal double jeopardy clauses); see also State v. Vaughn, 2005-NMCA-076, ¶¶ 6-8 , 137 N.M. 674 , 114 P.3d 354 (applying a federal constitutional analysis where the defendant failed to preserve his state constitutional claim). {19} “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both successive prosecutions and mu | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moragreen2 sentences2007See Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 , 7 n. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 , 1227 n. 3 (1991) (addressing defendant’s double jeopardy claim exclusively under the federal constitution where defendant used the term “double jeopardy” without reference to either the state or the federal double jeopardy clauses); see also State v. Vaughn, 2005-NMCA-076, ¶¶ 6-8 , 137 N.M. 674 , 114 P.3d 354 (applying a federal constitutional analysis where the defendant failed to preserve his state constitutional claim). {19} “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both successive prosecutions and mu 2007See Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 , 7 n. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 , 1227 n. 3 (1991) (addressing defendant’s double jeopardy claim exclusively under the federal constitution where defendant used the term “double jeopardy” without reference to either the state or the federal double jeopardy clauses); see also State v. Vaughn, 2005-NMCA-076, ¶¶ 6-8 , 137 N.M. 674 , 114 P.3d 354 (applying a federal constitutional analysis where the defendant failed to preserve his state constitutional claim). {19} “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both successive prosecutions and mu | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Hastinggreen2 sentences2005To make this determination, we consider the entire record to ascertain whether “there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] might have contributed to the conviction.” Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 25 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 509 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). 2005To make this determination, we consider the entire record to ascertain whether “there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] might have contributed to the conviction.” Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 25 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 509 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 1-2, 12-24 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (discussing requirements for preserving a State constitutional claim asserted beside a federal constitutional claim). 2004See State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 1-2, 12-24 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (discussing requirements for preserving a State constitutional claim asserted beside a federal constitutional claim). | 1 | 3 |
California v. Hodari D.green2 sentences2023In California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 , 627-28 16 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is not seized within 17 the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the defendant does not yield to an 18 officer’s show of authority seeking to effectuate a stop. 2023In California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 627-28 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the defendant does not yield to an officer’s show of authority seeking to effectuate a stop. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Leongreen1 sentence2025We therefore apply the federal constitutional standard. invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 33 , 292 P.3d 493 (“We generally do not consider issues on appeal that are not preserved below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Brian P. Corcoran v. Michael Sullivangreen1 sentence2021See Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) (providing that an appellate court, in its discretion, may consider issues of fundamental error for the first time on appeal); State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038 , ¶ 5, 307 P.3d 328 (reviewing unpreserved constitutional claim for fundamental error); see also Corcoran v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 836, 837 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Any claim of federal preemption of a state statute is a federal constitutional claim because the basis of such preemption is the supremacy clause[.]”); Fuentes- Espinoza v. People, 2017 CO 98, ¶ 19 , 408 P.3d 445 (exercising discretion to review an unpreserved p | 1 | 1 |
State v. Funderburggreen2 sentences2019See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 12 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . detention must rest on “specific articulable facts that, judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity occurred or was occurring.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[G]eneralized suspicions are insufficient grounds upon which to base an investigatory detention.” State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 17 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 . 2019See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 12 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . detention must rest on “specific articulable facts that, judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity occurred or was occurring.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[G]eneralized suspicions are insufficient grounds upon which to base an investigatory detention.” State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 17 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 . | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. CITY OF LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICOgreen2 sentences2004See Carter v. City of Las Cruces, 1996-NMCA-047 , ¶ 6, 121 N.M. 580 , 915 P.2d 336 . {35} It is undisputed that the June 1997 bill from the BCTO referred to a tax sale in 1998. 2004See Carter v. City of Las Cruces, 1996-NMCA-047 , ¶ 6, 121 N.M. 580 , 915 P.2d 336 . {35} It is undisputed that the June 1997 bill from the BCTO referred to a tax sale in 1998. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodwardgreen2 sentences2002In Chapman , the Supreme Court rejected the argument that any constitutional error requires automatic reversal and held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; accord State v. Woodward, 121 N.M. 1, 9 , 908 P.2d 231, 239 (1995). 2002In Chapman , the Supreme Court rejected the argument that any constitutional error requires automatic reversal and held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; accord State v. Woodward, 121 N.M. 1, 9 , 908 P.2d 231, 239 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Romerogreen | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Lunagreen2 sentences1996In Chapman v. Luna, 102 N.M. 768, 770 , 701 P.2d 367, 369 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 947 , 106 S.Ct. 345 , 88 L.Ed.2d 292 (1985), our Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 attorney fees should not be awarded in the absence of a complaint pleading 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a federal constitutional violation specifically. 1996In Chapman v. Luna, 102 N.M. 768, 770 , 701 P.2d 367, 369 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 947 , 106 S.Ct. 345 , 88 L.Ed.2d 292 (1985), our Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 attorney fees should not be awarded in the absence of a complaint pleading 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a federal constitutional violation specifically. | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Walter A. Niemiecgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Reed v. Reedgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2012The Supreme Court refined this principle in Chapman v. California, holding that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which tracked the prosecution's burden of proof for establishing guilt in the first instance. 2012The Supreme Court refined this principle in Chapman v. California, holding that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which tracked the prosecution's burden of proof for establishing guilt in the first instance. | 3 | 1979–2012 |
State v. Ochoa
green
2 sentences2015Right to 21 Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 28-43 , 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 19 1 (concluding that distinctive characteristics of the New Mexico Constitution mandated 2 rejection of federal constitutional analysis affording less protection); State v. 3 Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062 , ¶¶ 32, 50-56, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052 (discussing 4 “a willingness to undertake independent analysis of our state constitutional 5 guarantees when federal law begins to encroach on the sanctity of those guarantees” 6 and rejecting a federal constitutional rule as incompatible with the guarantees of t 2015Right to 21 Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 28-43 , 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 19 1 (concluding that distinctive characteristics of the New Mexico Constitution mandated 2 rejection of federal constitutional analysis affording less protection); State v. 3 Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062 , ¶¶ 32, 50-56, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052 (discussing 4 “a willingness to undertake independent analysis of our state constitutional 5 guarantees when federal law begins to encroach on the sanctity of those guarantees” 6 and rejecting a federal constitutional rule as incompatible with the guarantees of t | 2 | 2015–2015 |
New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2015Right to 21 Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 28-43 , 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 19 1 (concluding that distinctive characteristics of the New Mexico Constitution mandated 2 rejection of federal constitutional analysis affording less protection); State v. 3 Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062 , ¶¶ 32, 50-56, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052 (discussing 4 “a willingness to undertake independent analysis of our state constitutional 5 guarantees when federal law begins to encroach on the sanctity of those guarantees” 6 and rejecting a federal constitutional rule as incompatible with the guarantees of t 2015Right to 21 Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 28-43 , 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 19 1 (concluding that distinctive characteristics of the New Mexico Constitution mandated 2 rejection of federal constitutional analysis affording less protection); State v. 3 Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062 , ¶¶ 32, 50-56, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052 (discussing 4 “a willingness to undertake independent analysis of our state constitutional 5 guarantees when federal law begins to encroach on the sanctity of those guarantees” 6 and rejecting a federal constitutional rule as incompatible with the guarantees of t | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2015Right to 21 Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 28-43 , 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 19 1 (concluding that distinctive characteristics of the New Mexico Constitution mandated 2 rejection of federal constitutional analysis affording less protection); State v. 3 Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062 , ¶¶ 32, 50-56, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052 (discussing 4 “a willingness to undertake independent analysis of our state constitutional 5 guarantees when federal law begins to encroach on the sanctity of those guarantees” 6 and rejecting a federal constitutional rule as incompatible with the guarantees of t 2015Right to 21 Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 28-43 , 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 19 1 (concluding that distinctive characteristics of the New Mexico Constitution mandated 2 rejection of federal constitutional analysis affording less protection); State v. 3 Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062 , ¶¶ 32, 50-56, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052 (discussing 4 “a willingness to undertake independent analysis of our state constitutional 5 guarantees when federal law begins to encroach on the sanctity of those guarantees” 6 and rejecting a federal constitutional rule as incompatible with the guarantees of t | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Bernal
green
2 sentences2007“Multiple punishment problems can arise from both ‘double-description’ claims, in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes, and ‘unit-of-prosecution’ claims, in which an individual is convicted of multiple violations of the same criminal statute.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . 2007“Multiple punishment problems can arise from both ‘double-description’ claims, in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes, and ‘unit-of-prosecution’ claims, in which an individual is convicted of multiple violations of the same criminal statute.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Alvarez-Lopez
green
2 sentences2005As recently stated by our Supreme Court in State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 , and State v. Johnson, 2004-NMSC-029 , 136 N.M. 348 , 98 P.3d 998 , we must determine whether a federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2005As recently stated by our Supreme Court in State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 , and State v. Johnson, 2004-NMSC-029 , 136 N.M. 348 , 98 P.3d 998 , we must determine whether a federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2005As recently stated by our Supreme Court in State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 , and State v. Johnson, 2004-NMSC-029 , 136 N.M. 348 , 98 P.3d 998 , we must determine whether a federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2005As recently stated by our Supreme Court in State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 , and State v. Johnson, 2004-NMSC-029 , 136 N.M. 348 , 98 P.3d 998 , we must determine whether a federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Fuentes-Espinoza v. People
green
2 sentences2021See Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) (providing that an appellate court, in its discretion, may consider issues of fundamental error for the first time on appeal); State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038 , ¶ 5, 307 P.3d 328 (reviewing unpreserved constitutional claim for fundamental error); see also Corcoran v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 836, 837 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Any claim of federal preemption of a state statute is a federal constitutional claim because the basis of such preemption is the supremacy clause[.]”); Fuentes- Espinoza v. People, 2017 CO 98, ¶ 19 , 408 P.3d 445 (exercising discretion to review an unpreserved p 2021See Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) (providing that an appellate court, in its discretion, may consider issues of fundamental error for the first time on appeal); State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038 , ¶ 5, 307 P.3d 328 (reviewing unpreserved constitutional claim for fundamental error); see also Corcoran v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 836, 837 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Any claim of federal preemption of a state statute is a federal constitutional claim because the basis of such preemption is the supremacy clause[.]”); Fuentes- Espinoza v. People, 2017 CO 98, ¶ 19 , 408 P.3d 445 (exercising discretion to review an unpreserved p | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Samora
green
1 sentence2021See Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) (providing that an appellate court, in its discretion, may consider issues of fundamental error for the first time on appeal); State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038 , ¶ 5, 307 P.3d 328 (reviewing unpreserved constitutional claim for fundamental error); see also Corcoran v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 836, 837 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Any claim of federal preemption of a state statute is a federal constitutional claim because the basis of such preemption is the supremacy clause[.]”); Fuentes- Espinoza v. People, 2017 CO 98, ¶ 19 , 408 P.3d 445 (exercising discretion to review an unpreserved p | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Jason L.
green
2 sentences2019See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 12 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . detention must rest on “specific articulable facts that, judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity occurred or was occurring.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[G]eneralized suspicions are insufficient grounds upon which to base an investigatory detention.” State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 17 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 . 2019See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 12 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . detention must rest on “specific articulable facts that, judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity occurred or was occurring.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[G]eneralized suspicions are insufficient grounds upon which to base an investigatory detention.” State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 17 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Prince
green
2 sentences2019See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 12 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . detention must rest on “specific articulable facts that, judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity occurred or was occurring.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[G]eneralized suspicions are insufficient grounds upon which to base an investigatory detention.” State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 17 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 . 2019See Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 12 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . detention must rest on “specific articulable facts that, judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity occurred or was occurring.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[G]eneralized suspicions are insufficient grounds upon which to base an investigatory detention.” State v. Prince, 2004-NMCA-127, ¶ 17 , 136 N.M. 521 , 101 P.3d 332 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2016A. The Federal Miranda Rule Does Not Bar Admission of Child’s Incriminating Statements in a Probation Revocation Proceeding {12} Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), established the federal constitutional rule that incriminatory statements made by a criminal suspect during “custodial interrogation” by law enforcement may not be admitted into evidence in a criminal proceeding unless the prosecution demonstrates that sufficient procedural safeguards were employed to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 2016Id. at 444 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Candelaria
green
1 sentence2013Like the officers in Candelaria, the officer here “possessed reasonable suspicion to believe that [Defendant’s] vehicle, as well as its occupant . . . were subject to seizure.” 2011-NMCA-001, ¶ 16 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Mafin M.
green
1 sentence2007XII, ¶ 8 and other provisions of the New Mexico Constitution did not “require Spanish language notice in this context, and for that reason they do not alter the federal constitutional analysis.”). {43} In the absence of an absolute right to have documents translated in abuse and neglect proceedings, our due process inquiry focuses on whether the procedures employed below placed Father at risk of erroneous deprivation of his interest in the proceedings and “the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards.” Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, ¶19 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Teague v. Lane
green
2 sentences2005In resolving a federal constitutional claim, we are bound by Crawford as a matter of federal supremacy; the fact that we have done what is required of us and applied Crawford in our own cases does not transform the matter into an issue of state law or invest this Court with discretion over Crawford's retroactivity. *150 {18} The Supreme Court has stated that "[u]nless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced." Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S. 2005In resolving a federal constitutional claim, we are bound by Crawford as a matter of federal supremacy; the fact that we have done what is required of us and applied Crawford in our own cases does not transform the matter into an issue of state law or invest this Court with discretion over Crawford's retroactivity. *150 {18} The Supreme Court has stated that "[u]nless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced." Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Patel v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996In Chapman v. Luna, 102 N.M. 768, 770 , 701 P.2d 367, 369 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 947 , 106 S.Ct. 345 , 88 L.Ed.2d 292 (1985), our Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 attorney fees should not be awarded in the absence of a complaint pleading 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a federal constitutional violation specifically. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Chapman v. Luna green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Scheller v. American Medical International, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996In Chapman v. Luna, 102 N.M. 768, 770 , 701 P.2d 367, 369 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 947 , 106 S.Ct. 345 , 88 L.Ed.2d 292 (1985), our Supreme Court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 attorney fees should not be awarded in the absence of a complaint pleading 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a federal constitutional violation specifically. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Moore red | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Franklin green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.
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.