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.
20 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 7 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. Cabezuelagreen2 sentences2019See State v. Cabezuela, 2015-NMSC-016, ¶ 37 , 350 5 P.3d 1145 (“The exacting standard of review for reversal for fundamental error 6 requires the question of guilt be so doubtful that it would shock the conscience of 7 the court to permit the verdict to stand.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and 8 citation omitted)); State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 9 633 (“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional 10 circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”). 2019See State v. Cabezuela, 2015-NMSC-016, ¶ 37 , 350 P.3d 1145 ("The exacting standard of review for reversal for fundamental error requires the question of guilt be so doubtful that it would shock the conscience of the court to permit the verdict to stand." (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)); State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 ("The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice."). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Floresgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Flores, 2015-NMCA-002, ¶ 17 , 340 P.3d 622 (“Our Court has been clear that it is the responsibility of the parties to set forth their developed arguments, it is not the court’s responsibility to presume what they may have intended.”). 2022See State v. Flores, 2015-NMCA-002, ¶ 17 , 340 P.3d 622 (“Our Court has been clear that it is the responsibility of the parties to set forth their developed arguments, it is not the court’s responsibility to presume what they may have intended.”). {8} In short, we cannot conclude fundamental error occurred in this case. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Swickgreen2 sentences2015“The exacting standard of review for 18 reversal for fundamental error requires the question of guilt [be] so doubtful that it 19 would shock the conscience [of the court] to permit the verdict to stand.” State v. 19 1 Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 46 , 279 P.3d 747 (alterations in original) (internal 2 quotation marks and citation omitted). 2015“The exacting standard of review for reversal for fundamental error requires the question of guilt [be] so doubtful that it would shock the conscience [of the court] to permit the verdict to stand.” State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 46 , 279 P.3d 747 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2022See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 524 U.S. 936 (1998); see also Acosta v. Shell W. 2022The United 14 States Supreme Court has set forth an exacting standard for expert testimony that 15 applies to both scientific testimony and opinions based on experience and training. 16 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. 17 Carmichael, 524 U.S. 936 (1998); see also Acosta v. Shell W. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Astorgagreen1 sentence2024See State v. Astorga, 2016-NMCA-015, ¶ 5 , 365 P.3d 53 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Antonio D. Browngreen1 sentence2021See Brown, 2014 WI 69, ¶ 29 . {17} Interpreting “good working order” to mean that equipment on a vehicle is functioning for its intended use supports the public safety interests that are among the stated purposes of and are prevalent throughout the Motor Vehicle Code. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Varelagreen2 sentences2009See Chapman, 2008-NMCA-108, ¶¶ 33, 37, 40 , 144 N.M. 709 , 191 P.3d 567 . 2009See Chapman, 2008-NMCA-108, ¶¶ 33, 37, 40 , 144 N.M. 709 , 191 P.3d 567 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sparksgreen2 sentences1990See State v. Sparks, 102 N.M. 317 , 694 P.2d 1382 (Ct.App.1985) (requested instruction properly refused when it sets forth a more exacting requirement than the statute). 1990See State v. Sparks, 102 N.M. 317 , 694 P.2d 1382 (Ct.App.1985) (requested instruction properly refused when it sets forth a more exacting requirement than the statute). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Disbarment of Toth
green
2 sentences2022See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 524 U.S. 936 (1998); see also Acosta v. Shell W. 2022The United 14 States Supreme Court has set forth an exacting standard for expert testimony that 15 applies to both scientific testimony and opinions based on experience and training. 16 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. 17 Carmichael, 524 U.S. 936 (1998); see also Acosta v. Shell W. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Barber
green
2 sentences2019See State v. Cabezuela, 2015-NMSC-016, ¶ 37 , 350 5 P.3d 1145 (“The exacting standard of review for reversal for fundamental error 6 requires the question of guilt be so doubtful that it would shock the conscience of 7 the court to permit the verdict to stand.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and 8 citation omitted)); State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 9 633 (“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional 10 circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”). 2019See State v. Cabezuela, 2015-NMSC-016, ¶ 37 , 350 5 P.3d 1145 (“The exacting standard of review for reversal for fundamental error 6 requires the question of guilt be so doubtful that it would shock the conscience of 7 the court to permit the verdict to stand.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and 8 citation omitted)); State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 9 633 (“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional 10 circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Samora
green
2 sentences2015“The exacting standard of review for reversal for fundamental error requires the question of guilt be so doubtful that it would shock the conscience of the court to permit the verdict to stand.” State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 17 , 307 P.3d 328 (internal alterations omitted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2015“The exacting standard of review for 15 reversal for fundamental error requires the question of guilt be so doubtful that it 16 would shock the conscience of the court to permit the verdict to stand.” State v. 17 Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 17 , 307 P.3d 328 (internal alterations omitted) (internal 18 quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
SEWALL, JR. (ARTHUR) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
green
1 sentence2022Cnty. of Clark, 481 P.3d 1249 , 1253 (Nev. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), our Constitution requires the state to be held to an exacting standard when it asks a court to order a defendant to remain jailed while awaiting trial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Acosta v. Shell W. Expl. & Prod., Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Expl. & Prod., Inc., 18 2016-NMSC-012, ¶ 25 , 370 P.3d 761 (describing the federal standards). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Sosa
green
1 sentence2012The exacting standard of review for reversal for fundamental error requires “the question of guilt [be] so doubtful that it would shock the conscience [of the court] to permit theverdictto stand.” Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994For example, in City of Cleburne, which involved an equal protection challenge to a zoning ordinance requiring a special use permit for a proposed home for persons who are mentally retarded, a plurality of the Court stated that the lower court “erred in holding mental retardation a quasi-suspect classification calling for a more exacting standard of judicial review than is normally accorded economic and social legislation.” 473 U.S. at 442 , 105 S.Ct. at 3255 . 1994For example, in City of Cleburne, which involved an equal protection challenge to a zoning ordinance requiring a special use permit for a proposed home for persons who are mentally retarded, a plurality of the Court stated that the lower court “erred in holding mental retardation a quasi-suspect classification calling for a more exacting standard of judicial review than is normally accorded economic and social legislation.” 473 U.S. at 442 , 105 S.Ct. at 3255 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.