23 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 6 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. SMILEgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Smile, 2009-NMCA-064, ¶ 27 . 2014See, e.g., Smile, 2009-NMCA-064, ¶ 27 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Olivasgreen2 sentences2021Rather, we consider how “a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {20} In the event that there is no formal arrest prior to questioning, “our appellate courts engage in a fact-specific analysis of the totality of the circumstances under which the questioning took place in order to decide whether the custody requirement is met.” State v. Olivas, 2011-NMCA-030, ¶ 10 , 149 N.M. 498 , 252 P.3d 722 . 2021Rather, we consider how “a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {20} In the event that there is no formal arrest prior to questioning, “our appellate courts engage in a fact-specific analysis of the totality of the circumstances under which the questioning took place in order to decide whether the custody requirement is met.” State v. Olivas, 2011-NMCA-030, ¶ 10 , 149 N.M. 498 , 252 P.3d 722 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Hermosillogreen2 sentences2025See State v. Hermosillo, 2014-NMCA-102, ¶ 11 , 336 P.3d 446 (“If no formal arrest occurred prior to questioning, our appellate courts engage in a fact-specific analysis of the totality of the circumstances under which the questioning took place in order to decide whether the custody requirement is met.”). {6} Before the investigating officer arrived, civilian bystanders1 prevented Defendant from fleeing the scene of the accident. 2023See State v. Hermosillo, 2014-NMCA-102, ¶ 30 , 336 P.3d 446 (“[T]he fact that [the d]efendant was handcuffed is one of many factors that must be considered under the totality of the circumstances.”). {12} The State also cites to Armijo v. State ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbadgreen2 sentences2011See Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 ("We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless."), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a nonadoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature's limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. 2011See Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 ("We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless."), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a nonadoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature's limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Marlene C.green2 sentences2011See Marlene C., 2009-NMCA-058, ¶¶ 15-18 , 146 N.M. 588 , 212 P.3d 1142 . 2011See Marlene C., 2009-NMCA-058, ¶¶ 15-18 , 146 N.M. 588 , 212 P.3d 1142 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2011See Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 ("We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless."), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a nonadoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature's limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. 2010See Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 (“We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless.”), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a non-adoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature’s limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. | 2 | 2 |
State of Nm Ex Rel. Cyfd v. Marlene C.green2 sentences2011See Marlene C., 2009-NMCA-058, ¶¶ 15-18 , 146 N.M. 588 , 212 P.3d 1142 . 2011See Marlene C., 2009-NMCA-058, ¶¶ 15-18 , 146 N.M. 588 , 212 P.3d 1142 . | 2 | 2 |
Albq. Commons v. City of Albqgreen2 sentences2011See Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 ("We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless."), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a nonadoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature's limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. 2010See Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 (“We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless.”), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a non-adoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature’s limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. | 2 | 2 |
Ezell v. Rochagreen2 sentences2011See Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 ("We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless."), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a nonadoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature's limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. 2010See Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Carlsbad, 2009-NMCA-097, ¶ 11 , 147 N.M. 6 , 216 P.3d 256 (“We seek to give meaning to all parts of the statute, such that no portion is rendered surplusage or meaningless.”), cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007 , 147 N.M. 363 , 223 P.3d 360 . {15} Indeed, if we were to read Subsection (L) as Petitioner requests, granting a non-adoptive or non-natural parent standing to bring a custody claim, we would be rendering meaningless the Legislature’s limitation of standing to adoptive and natural parents. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Munozgreen2 sentences2024See Munoz, 1998-NMSC-048, ¶¶ 8, 43-44 (citing Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977)) (noting in the factual background section the defendant’s allegation that the agent raised his voice but not factoring it into the custody analysis, and holding that where the defendant voluntarily went to the police station, was informed that he could leave at any time, was not handcuffed, and left without hindrance, the defendant’s freedom of movement was not restrained in any way associated with a formal arrest, and “[a]ny interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive 2021The following factors guide our inquiry: “the purpose, place, and length of interrogation[,] . . . the extent to which the defendant is confronted with evidence of guilt, the physical surroundings of the interrogation, the duration of the detention, and the degree of pressure applied to the defendant.” State v. Munoz, 1998-NMSC-048, ¶ 40 , 126 N.M. 535 , 972 P.2d 847 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {21} Defendant drove to the sheriff’s department on his own accord for the purpose of discussing the burglary of his trailer with Detective Babadi. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2021Rather, we consider how “a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {20} In the event that there is no formal arrest prior to questioning, “our appellate courts engage in a fact-specific analysis of the totality of the circumstances under which the questioning took place in order to decide whether the custody requirement is met.” State v. Olivas, 2011-NMCA-030, ¶ 10 , 149 N.M. 498 , 252 P.3d 722 . 2009See generally State v. Wilson, 2007-NMCA-111, ¶ 23 , 142 N.M. 737 , 169 P.3d 1184 (explaining that, in assessing whether an individual was in custody for Miranda purposes, “the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint of freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), cert. denied, 2007-NMCERT-008 , 142 N.M. 435 , 166 P.3d 1089 . | 1 | 2 |
Oregon v. Mathiasongreen1 sentence2024See Munoz, 1998-NMSC-048, ¶¶ 8, 43-44 (citing Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977)) (noting in the factual background section the defendant’s allegation that the agent raised his voice but not factoring it into the custody analysis, and holding that where the defendant voluntarily went to the police station, was informed that he could leave at any time, was not handcuffed, and left without hindrance, the defendant’s freedom of movement was not restrained in any way associated with a formal arrest, and “[a]ny interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive | 1 | 1 |
Misquez v. Bacagreen1 sentence2022In In re Byrnes, 2002-NMCA-102, ¶¶ 1, 3-7 , 132 N.M. 718 , 54 P.3d 996 , this Court affirmed a $1,000 contempt fine imposed on an attorney who continually interrupted and argued with the district court judge during a custody hearing, despite several admonitions to stop. {30} In another illustrative case, In re Cherryhomes, an attorney was summarily held in contempt after he became combative and belligerent. 1985-NMCA-108 , ¶ 3, 103 N.M. 771 , 714 P.2d 188 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bravogreen1 sentence2013Therefore, we must “engage in a fact-specific 20 analysis of the totality of the circumstances under which the questioning took place 3 1 in order to decide whether the custody requirement is met.” State v. Olivas, 2011- 2 NMCA-030, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 498 , 252 P.3d 722 . 3 {7} We have previously identified several factors to consider when determining 4 whether a reasonable person would believe he is free to leave, including “the purpose, 5 place, and length of interrogation[,] . . . the extent to which the defendant is 6 confronted with evidence of guilt, the physical surroundings of the interrog | 1 | 1 |
State v. Figueroagreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Smile, 2009-NMCA-064, ¶ 27 , 146 N.M. 525 , 212 P.3d 413 , cert. quashed, 2010-NMCERT-006 , 148 N.M. 584 , 241 P.3d 182 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. SMILEgreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Smile, 2009-NMCA-064, ¶ 27 , 146 N.M. 525 , 212 P.3d 413 , cert. quashed, 2010-NMCERT-006 , 148 N.M. 584 , 241 P.3d 182 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Montoyagreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Smile, 2009-NMCA-064, ¶ 27 , 146 N.M. 525 , 212 P.3d 413 , cert. quashed, 2010-NMCERT-006 , 148 N.M. 584 , 241 P.3d 182 . | 1 | 1 |
| Heilman v. Heilmangreen | 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. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Marlene C.
green
2 sentences2015In re Esther V., 11 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 27 ; § 32A-4-18(A), (D). 2015In re Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 27 ; § 32A-4-18(A), (D). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Coppler & Mannick, P.C. v. Wakeland
green
2 sentences2011Coppler & Mannick, P.C., 2005-NMSC-022, ¶ 8 , 138 N.M. 108 , 117 P.3d 914 . 2011Coppler & Mannick, P.C., 2005-NMSC-022, ¶ 8 , 138 N.M. 108 , 117 P.3d 914 . | 2 | 2010–2011 |
In Re Summary Contempt Proceedings Against Cherryhomes
green
2 sentences2022In In re Byrnes, 2002-NMCA-102, ¶¶ 1, 3-7 , 132 N.M. 718 , 54 P.3d 996 , this Court affirmed a $1,000 contempt fine imposed on an attorney who continually interrupted and argued with the district court judge during a custody hearing, despite several admonitions to stop. {30} In another illustrative case, In re Cherryhomes, an attorney was summarily held in contempt after he became combative and belligerent. 1985-NMCA-108 , ¶ 3, 103 N.M. 771 , 714 P.2d 188 . 2022In In re Byrnes, 2002-NMCA-102, ¶¶ 1, 3-7 , 132 N.M. 718 , 54 P.3d 996 , this Court affirmed a $1,000 contempt fine imposed on an attorney who continually interrupted and argued with the district court judge during a custody hearing, despite several admonitions to stop. {30} In another illustrative case, In re Cherryhomes, an attorney was summarily held in contempt after he became combative and belligerent. 1985-NMCA-108 , ¶ 3, 103 N.M. 771 , 714 P.2d 188 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hoeffel
green
2 sentences2022Cf. State v. Hoeffel, 1991-NMCA-070 , ¶ 5, 112 N.M. 358 , 815 P.2d 654 (“As a general rule, collateral estoppel, in either a criminal or a civil context, does not bind one who was not a party in the prior action.”). 2022Cf. State v. Hoeffel, 1991-NMCA-070 , ¶ 5, 112 N.M. 358 , 815 P.2d 654 (“As a general rule, collateral estoppel, in either a criminal or a civil context, does not bind one who was not a party in the prior action.”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Byrnes
green
2 sentences2022In In re Byrnes, 2002-NMCA-102, ¶¶ 1, 3-7 , 132 N.M. 718 , 54 P.3d 996 , this Court affirmed a $1,000 contempt fine imposed on an attorney who continually interrupted and argued with the district court judge during a custody hearing, despite several admonitions to stop. {30} In another illustrative case, In re Cherryhomes, an attorney was summarily held in contempt after he became combative and belligerent. 1985-NMCA-108 , ¶ 3, 103 N.M. 771 , 714 P.2d 188 . 2022In In re Byrnes, 2002-NMCA-102, ¶¶ 1, 3-7 , 132 N.M. 718 , 54 P.3d 996 , this Court affirmed a $1,000 contempt fine imposed on an attorney who continually interrupted and argued with the district court judge during a custody hearing, despite several admonitions to stop. {30} In another illustrative case, In re Cherryhomes, an attorney was summarily held in contempt after he became combative and belligerent. 1985-NMCA-108 , ¶ 3, 103 N.M. 771 , 714 P.2d 188 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Alfieri v. Alfieri
green
2 sentences2018Cf. Alfieri v. Alfieri, 1987-NMCA-003 , ¶ 27, 105 N.M. 373 , 733 P.2d 4 (explaining that it has been “recognized that a custodial parent’s demonstrated lack of cooperation [with the other parent] and refusal to follow prior court orders concerning visitation may constitute grounds for a change of custody in an extreme case” (emphasis added)). 16 1 decided by . . . allocating ultimate responsibility for a particular major decision 2 area to one legal custodian”). 3 {23} Moreover, we note that other aspects of Lombardo’s recommendations 4 further support the interpretation that what Lombardo was 2018Cf. Alfieri v. Alfieri, 1987-NMCA-003 , ¶ 27, 105 N.M. 373 , 733 P.2d 4 (explaining that it has been “recognized that a custodial parent’s demonstrated lack of cooperation [with the other parent] and refusal to follow prior court orders concerning visitation may constitute grounds for a change of custody in an extreme case” (emphasis added)). 16 1 decided by . . . allocating ultimate responsibility for a particular major decision 2 area to one legal custodian”). 3 {23} Moreover, we note that other aspects of Lombardo’s recommendations 4 further support the interpretation that what Lombardo was | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Schuermann v. Schuermann
green
2 sentences2017Accordingly, we hold that any modification or 7 change from the stipulated interim order required a showing of a “substantial and 8 material change in circumstances.” See Schuermann v. Schuermann, 1980-NMSC- 9 027, ¶¶ 4, 7, 94 N.M. 81 , 607 P.2d 619 (stating that there is a strong presumption in 10 favor of the original custody arrangement, and the party seeking to alter the status quo 11 bears the burden of proving a change in circumstances). 12 {26} The district court in this case did not consider whether there was a substantial 13 and material change in circumstances affecting the best inte 2017Accordingly, we hold that any modification or 7 change from the stipulated interim order required a showing of a “substantial and 8 material change in circumstances.” See Schuermann v. Schuermann, 1980-NMSC- 9 027, ¶¶ 4, 7, 94 N.M. 81 , 607 P.2d 619 (stating that there is a strong presumption in 10 favor of the original custody arrangement, and the party seeking to alter the status quo 11 bears the burden of proving a change in circumstances). 12 {26} The district court in this case did not consider whether there was a substantial 13 and material change in circumstances affecting the best inte | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Tran
green
1 sentence2013Cal. Dec. 30, 2010) (recognizing a shared view, among courts that have considered the issue, that “the collateral immigration consequences 1 We note that in Tran, 2009-NMCA-010, ¶ 17 , this Court concluded that a Rule 1- 060(B)(4) motion was the correct procedural mechanism for the defendant to request relief. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Wachter v. Wachter
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 8 1264. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence2009See generally State v. Wilson, 2007-NMCA-111, ¶ 23 , 142 N.M. 737 , 169 P.3d 1184 (explaining that, in assessing whether an individual was in custody for Miranda purposes, “the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint of freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), cert. denied, 2007-NMCERT-008 , 142 N.M. 435 , 166 P.3d 1089 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Marquez
neutral
1 sentence2009See generally State v. Wilson, 2007-NMCA-111, ¶ 23 , 142 N.M. 737 , 169 P.3d 1184 (explaining that, in assessing whether an individual was in custody for Miranda purposes, “the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint of freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), cert. denied, 2007-NMCERT-008 , 142 N.M. 435 , 166 P.3d 1089 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department
green
1 sentence2008Children, Youth & Families Department v. Michelle B., 2001-NMCA-071 , 130 N.M. 781 , 32 P.3d 790 , in order to make her first point. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re State Ex Rel. Cyfd
green
2 sentences2008Children, Youth & Families Department v. Michelle B., 2001-NMCA-071 , 130 N.M. 781 , 32 P.3d 790 , in order to make her first point. 2008Children, Youth & Families Department v. Michelle B., 2001-NMCA-071 , 130 N.M. 781 , 32 P.3d 790 , in order to make her first point. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.