20 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chris & Christine L. v. Vanessa O.green2 sentences2024See Chris L. v. Vanessa O., 2013-NMCA-107, ¶ 27 , 320 P.3d 16 (“Invited error occurs where a party has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling, and, as a result, the party should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.” (text only) (citation omitted)). {28} Because the burden of showing actual bias on the part of the potential jurors who heard Juror 3’s comments in open court during voir dire is on Defendant, the party seeking their exclusion for cause, Defendant cannot now obtain a new trial by arguing that the district court 2024See Chris L. v. Vanessa O., 2013-NMCA-107, ¶ 27 , 320 P.3d 16 (“Invited error occurs where a party has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a [district] court’s ruling, and, as a result, the party should hardly be heard to complain about these shortcomings on appeal.” (alteration, omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {11} We thus turn to Petitioner’s fourth and final argument. | 7 | 7 |
State v. Arellanogreen2 sentences2017See State v. Arellano, 1998-NMSC-026, ¶¶ 8 , 9 18-19, 125 N.M. 709 , 965 P.2d 293 (expressing disdain for gamesmanship where the 10 defense elected not to alert the trial court to claimed “fundamental structural error” 11 and waited for the verdict before objecting). 2017See State v. Arellano, 1998-NMSC-026, ¶¶ 8 , 9 18-19, 125 N.M. 709 , 965 P.2d 293 (expressing disdain for gamesmanship where the 10 defense elected not to alert the trial court to claimed “fundamental structural error” 11 and waited for the verdict before objecting). | 2 | 2 |
State v. an Xuan Nguyengreen2 sentences2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). 2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Gardner, 2003-NMCA- 107, ¶ 9, 134 N.M. 294 , 76 P.3d 47 (holding that the district court responds properly when it investigates biased comments from a panel member to determine whether any potential juror who heard the comments actually shares the bias of the speaker). 2The State asks this Court to decide this appeal against the defense based on the doctrine of invited error. 2024See State v. Gardner, 2003-NMCA- 107, ¶ 9, 134 N.M. 294 , 76 P.3d 47 (holding that the district court responds properly when it investigates biased comments from a panel member to determine whether any potential juror who heard the comments actually shares the bias of the speaker). 2The State asks this Court to decide this appeal against the defense based on the doctrine of invited error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pereagreen2 sentences2024See Chris L. v. Vanessa O., 2013- NMCA-107, ¶ 27, 320 P.3d 16 (“Invited error occurs where a party has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling, and, as a result, the party should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.” (text only) (citation omitted)). 13 1 1981-NMCA-033 , ¶¶ 14-15, 95 N.M. 777 , 626 P.2d 851 (holding that juror exposure 2 by another juror to a newspaper article suggesting that the defendant was guilty 3 required a new trial). 2024See Chris L. v. Vanessa O., 2013- NMCA-107, ¶ 27, 320 P.3d 16 (“Invited error occurs where a party has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling, and, as a result, the party should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.” (text only) (citation omitted)). 13 1 1981-NMCA-033 , ¶¶ 14-15, 95 N.M. 777 , 626 P.2d 851 (holding that juror exposure 2 by another juror to a newspaper article suggesting that the defendant was guilty 3 required a new trial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guerragreen1 sentence2022See id. ¶ 34 (holding that any alleged taint arising from the defendant’s seat position in the courtroom did not arise as a result of improper law enforcement influence and was not required to be suppressed on that basis); see also State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (explaining that appellate courts are under no obligation to review unclear or undeveloped arguments). {5} While the invited error doctrine disposes of the matter, we briefly note two additional points that preclude our consideration of Defendant’s substantive arguments. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ortegagreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“A party may not be rewarded with a new trial when it invites jury instruction error and subsequently complains about that very error.”); State v. Padilla, 1986-NMCA-063 , ¶ 11, 104 N.M. 446 , 722 P.2d 697 (noting that this Court has refused to review invited error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penningtongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Pennington, 1993-NMCA-037 , ¶ 28, 115 N.M. 372 , 851 P.2d 494 . 2020See State v. Pennington, 1993-NMCA-037 , ¶ 28, 115 N.M. 372 , 851 P.2d 494 . | 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. Jim
green
2 sentences2017State v. Jim, 2014-NMCA-089 , ¶ 22, 332 17 P.3d 870 (“It is well established that a party may not invite error and then proceed to 18 complain about it on appeal.”). 2017State v. Jim, 2014-NMCA-089 , ¶ 22, 332 17 P.3d 870 (“It is well established that a party may not invite error and then proceed to 18 complain about it on appeal.”). | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. JASON F.
green
2 sentences2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). 2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Handa
green
2 sentences2024“Furthermore, the doctrine of fundamental error has no application in cases where the defendant, by his own actions, invites error.” Id. {31} Defendant contends we should not apply the doctrine of invited error because there was no gamesmanship before the district court. 2024“Furthermore, the doctrine of fundamental error has no application in cases where the defendant, by his own actions, invites error.” Id. {31} Defendant contends we should not apply the doctrine of invited error because there was no gamesmanship before the district court. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Padilla
green
2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“A party may not be rewarded with a new trial when it invites jury instruction error and subsequently complains about that very error.”); State v. Padilla, 1986-NMCA-063 , ¶ 11, 104 N.M. 446 , 722 P.2d 697 (noting that this Court has refused to review invited error). 2021See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“A party may not be rewarded with a new trial when it invites jury instruction error and subsequently complains about that very error.”); State v. Padilla, 1986-NMCA-063 , ¶ 11, 104 N.M. 446 , 722 P.2d 697 (noting that this Court has refused to review invited error). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Estate of Gutierrez v. Meteor Monument
green
1 sentence2015We continue to believe that the district court’s order adopting the mediation 5 transcript as the marital settlement agreement was entered to clarify the settlement 6 agreement in an effort to facilitate its enforcement and execution, [RP 331-32] an 7 effort that even Petitioner’s own motions suggest to us is required in this case. [RP 8 328, 347] See id. ¶ 41 (stating that, in this context, “ ‘[e]nforce’ means to compel 9 obedience to, or to cause the provisions to be executed”). 10 {9} We note that this Court’s reliance on Estate of Gutierrez v. Meteor Monument, 11 L.L.C., 2012-NMSC-004, ¶ 3 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Estate of Gutierrez Ex Rel. Jaramillo v. Meteor Monument
green
1 sentence2015We continue to believe that the district court’s order adopting the mediation 5 transcript as the marital settlement agreement was entered to clarify the settlement 6 agreement in an effort to facilitate its enforcement and execution, [RP 331-32] an 7 effort that even Petitioner’s own motions suggest to us is required in this case. [RP 8 328, 347] See id. ¶ 41 (stating that, in this context, “ ‘[e]nforce’ means to compel 9 obedience to, or to cause the provisions to be executed”). 10 {9} We note that this Court’s reliance on Estate of Gutierrez v. Meteor Monument, 11 L.L.C., 2012-NMSC-004, ¶ 3 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013In addition, it is entirely possible that Mother could have rebutted Adoptive Parents’ showing of abandonment if Mother had been represented by counsel. {26} We are equally unpersuaded by Adoptive Parents’ argument that Mother invited any error by implying in her first pleading in the adoption case that she had recovered from financial difficulties “during [a] three[-]month period” and by detailing expenditures she had made during the guardianship proceedings. {27} Invited error occurs where “[a] party . . . has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling 2013In addition, it is entirely possible that Mother could have rebutted Adoptive Parents’ showing of abandonment if Mother had been represented by counsel. {26} We are equally unpersuaded by Adoptive Parents’ argument that Mother invited any error by implying in her first pleading in the adoption case that she had recovered from financial difficulties “during [a] three[-]month period” and by detailing expenditures she had made during the guardianship proceedings. {27} Invited error occurs where “[a] party . . . has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.