burden of establishing claim in New Mexico

2025See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (recognizing the presumption of correctness in the district court’s rulings and the appellant’s burden of establishing error).

2025See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (recognizing the presumption of correctness in the district court’s rulings and the appellant’s burden of establishing error).

2023See Pina v. Espinoza, 2001-NMCA-055 , 4 ¶ 24, 130 N.M. 661 , 29 P.3d 1062 . 5 {19} The meaning of a confidential physician-patient communication protected by 6 Rule 11-504 was first construed by this Court in In re Doe, 1982-NMCA-115 , ¶ 24, 7 98 N.M. 442 , 649 P.2d 510 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996- 8 NMC A-073, ¶ 12, n.3, 122 N.M. 126 , 921 P.2d 322 .

2023See Pina v. Espinoza, 2001-NMCA-055 , 4 ¶ 24, 130 N.M. 661 , 29 P.3d 1062 . 5 {19} The meaning of a confidential physician-patient communication protected by 6 Rule 11-504 was first construed by this Court in In re Doe, 1982-NMCA-115 , ¶ 24, 7 98 N.M. 442 , 649 P.2d 510 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996- 8 NMC A-073, ¶ 12, n.3, 122 N.M. 126 , 921 P.2d 322 .

2023See Pina v. Espinoza, 2001-NMCA-055 , 4 ¶ 24, 130 N.M. 661 , 29 P.3d 1062 . 5 {19} The meaning of a confidential physician-patient communication protected by 6 Rule 11-504 was first construed by this Court in In re Doe, 1982-NMCA-115 , ¶ 24, 7 98 N.M. 442 , 649 P.2d 510 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996- 8 NMC A-073, ¶ 12, n.3, 122 N.M. 126 , 921 P.2d 322 .

2023See Pina v. Espinoza, 2001-NMCA-055 , 4 ¶ 24, 130 N.M. 661 , 29 P.3d 1062 . 5 {19} The meaning of a confidential physician-patient communication protected by 6 Rule 11-504 was first construed by this Court in In re Doe, 1982-NMCA-115 , ¶ 24, 7 98 N.M. 442 , 649 P.2d 510 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996- 8 NMC A-073, ¶ 12, n.3, 122 N.M. 126 , 921 P.2d 322 .

2023See Pina v. Espinoza, 2001-NMCA-055 , 4 ¶ 24, 130 N.M. 661 , 29 P.3d 1062 . 5 {19} The meaning of a confidential physician-patient communication protected by 6 Rule 11-504 was first construed by this Court in In re Doe, 1982-NMCA-115 , ¶ 24, 7 98 N.M. 442 , 649 P.2d 510 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996- 8 NMC A-073, ¶ 12, n.3, 122 N.M. 126 , 921 P.2d 322 .

2023See Pina v. Espinoza, 2001-NMCA-055 , 4 ¶ 24, 130 N.M. 661 , 29 P.3d 1062 . 5 {19} The meaning of a confidential physician-patient communication protected by 6 Rule 11-504 was first construed by this Court in In re Doe, 1982-NMCA-115 , ¶ 24, 7 98 N.M. 442 , 649 P.2d 510 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Roper, 1996- 8 NMC A-073, ¶ 12, n.3, 122 N.M. 126 , 921 P.2d 322 .

2014A defendant claiming that the plaintiffs claim is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion must demonstrate that the following four elements are met: (1) “the parties must be the same or in privity},]” (2) “the subject matter must be identical},]” (3) “the capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made must be the same},]” and (4) “the same cause of action must be involved in both suits.” Deflon, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Moffat v. Branch, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 , 138 N.M. 224 , 118 P.3d 732 (stating that the defendant

2014A defendant claiming that the plaintiffs claim is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion must demonstrate that the following four elements are met: (1) “the parties must be the same or in privity},]” (2) “the subject matter must be identical},]” (3) “the capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made must be the same},]” and (4) “the same cause of action must be involved in both suits.” Deflon, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Moffat v. Branch, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 , 138 N.M. 224 , 118 P.3d 732 (stating that the defendant

2014A defendant claiming that the plaintiffs claim is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion must demonstrate that the following four elements are met: (1) “the parties must be the same or in privity},]” (2) “the subject matter must be identical},]” (3) “the capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made must be the same},]” and (4) “the same cause of action must be involved in both suits.” Deflon, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Moffat v. Branch, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 , 138 N.M. 224 , 118 P.3d 732 (stating that the defendant

2014A defendant claiming that the plaintiff’s claim is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion must demonstrate that the following four elements are met: (1) “the parties 7 must be the same or in privity[,]” (2) “the subject matter must be identical[,]” (3) “the capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made must be the same[,]” and (4) “the same cause of action must be involved in both suits.” Deflon, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Moffat v. Branch, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 , 138 N.M. 224 , 118 P.3d 732 (stating that the defend

2014A defendant claiming that the plaintiffs claim is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion must demonstrate that the following four elements are met: (1) “the parties must be the same or in privity},]” (2) “the subject matter must be identical},]” (3) “the capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made must be the same},]” and (4) “the same cause of action must be involved in both suits.” Deflon, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Moffat v. Branch, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 , 138 N.M. 224 , 118 P.3d 732 (stating that the defendant

2014A defendant claiming that the plaintiff’s claim is barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion must demonstrate that the following four elements are met: (1) “the parties 7 must be the same or in privity[,]” (2) “the subject matter must be identical[,]” (3) “the capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made must be the same[,]” and (4) “the same cause of action must be involved in both suits.” Deflon, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Moffat v. Branch, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 , 138 N.M. 224 , 118 P.3d 732 (stating that the defend

2006See State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985) (observing that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement).

2006See State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985) (observing that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement).

2023See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred).

2023See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred).

2007“Litigants alleging ineffective assistance of counsel have the burden of establishing the claim and are required to show not only that trial counsel was ineffective, but that trial counsel’s inadequacies prejudiced them.” Id. {54} In support of this argument, Father points to his attempt to remove counsel at one point, the fact that counsel only translated small portions of court documents, and his testimony at the termination trial that he thought he communicated with counsel “maybe 50%” of the time.

2000Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. David F., 121 N.M. 341, 348 , 911 P.2d 235, 242 (Ct.App.1995) (citation omitted).

2024See id. ¶ 18 (“[T]he party asserting the physician-patient privilege has the burden of establishing the privilege.”); see also State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 .

2024See id. ¶ 18 (“[T]he party asserting the physician-patient privilege has the burden of establishing the privilege.”); see also State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 .

2024See id. ¶ 18 (“[T]he party asserting the physician-patient privilege has the burden of establishing the privilege.”); see also State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 .

2022See Regents of the Univ. of N.M., 1998-NMSC-020, ¶ 17 .

2021See, e.g., In re Termination of Parental Rights of James W.H., 1993-NMCA-028 , ¶¶ 9-10, 115 N.M. 256 , 849 P.2d 1079 .

2021See, e.g., In re Termination of Parental Rights of James W.H., 1993-NMCA-028 , ¶¶ 9-10, 115 N.M. 256 , 849 P.2d 1079 .

1995Richardson, 114 N.M. at 727 , 845 P.2d at 821 ; see also Geist, 796 P.2d at 1203-04 . 25.

1984See Michael v. Warner/Chilcott, 91 N.M. 651 , 579 P.2d 183 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, Robbins v. Michael, 91 N.M. 610 , 577 P.2d 1256 (1978).

1984See Michael v. Warner/Chilcott, 91 N.M. 651 , 579 P.2d 183 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, Robbins v. Michael, 91 N.M. 610 , 577 P.2d 1256 (1978).

1969Compare Gallegos v. Wilkerson, 79 N.M. 549 , 445 P.2d 970 (1968); Wynne v. Pino, 78 N.M. 520 , 433 P.2d 499 (1967); Baker v. Shufflebarger & Associates, Inc., 77 N.M. 50 , 419 P.2d 250 (1966).

1969Compare Gallegos v. Wilkerson, 79 N.M. 549 , 445 P.2d 970 (1968); Wynne v. Pino, 78 N.M. 520 , 433 P.2d 499 (1967); Baker v. Shufflebarger & Associates, Inc., 77 N.M. 50 , 419 P.2d 250 (1966).