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 1960–2025 5 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. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2025“At trial, the state has an opportunity to overcome the Legislature’s presumption of singularity, but doing so requires the state to carry a heavy burden.” Id. 2021We apply a totality of the circumstances test “to determine the exceptional instances in which the Legislature’s presumption of singularity may be overcome.” Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶ 56 . {24} Under the totality of circumstances test we consider whether “the alleged conspiracies (1) have the same location, (2) overlap significantly in time, (3) involve the same or overlapping personnel, (4) involve similar overt acts charged against the defendant, and (5) involve the defendant performing a similar role.” Comitz, 2019- NMSC-011, ¶ 34. | 1 | 5 |
Albuquerque Rape Crisis Center v. Blackmergreen2 sentences2025As we implicitly approved in Blackmer, “‘A careful reading of the cases 10 1 and subsequent decisions applying them suggests . . . that the supreme court intended 2 not to exclude the legislature from the rule-making process but only intended to 3 assure judicial supremacy in any clash between legislative and judicial rules of 4 procedure.’” 2005-NMSC-032, ¶ 5 (quoting Michael B. 2008Blackmer, 2005-NMSC-032, ¶ 11 , 138 N.M. 398 , 120 P.3d 820 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bahneygreen1 sentence2021Cf. State v. Bahney, 2012-NMCA-039, ¶¶ 11, 19 , 274 P.3d 134 (concluding that the defendant formed one overarching agreement despite intervening events including a forty-five-minute trip to Walmart); Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 12, 58, 64 (concluding that the defendant’s multiple conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy despite the fact that over the course of seven hours defendant also visited an Allsup’s). {28} To the extent the State relies on the fact that each conspiracy charge was premised on an agreement to rob distinct establishments, we emphasize that the State’s heavy burden t | 1 | 1 |
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n v. D'Antoniogreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Tri-State, 2011-NMCA-015, ¶ 28 (“[H]ad the Legislature wished to grant the State Engineer such authority for determining priorities, it would have done so in direct, clear, and certain terms, rather than merely directing the State Engineer to adopt regulations consistent with the State Engineer’s existing authority.”). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Sandel v. New Mexico Public Utility Commissiongreen2 sentences2010Comm’n, 1999-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 11, 30 , 127 N.M. 272 , 980 P.2d 55 (holding that the Public Utility Commission’s deregulation of part of the electric power industry was inconsistent with its statutory authority and thus intruded on the province of the Legislature in violation of Article III, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution). 2010Comm’n, 1999-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 11, 30 , 127 N.M. 272 , 980 P.2d 55 (holding that the Public Utility Commission’s deregulation of part of the electric power industry was inconsistent with its statutory authority and thus intruded on the province of the Legislature in violation of Article III, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2006The Constitutional Reasonableness of the Seizure {15} The Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution “simply state[ ] a right-the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 444 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1065 (1993). 2006The Constitutional Reasonableness of the Seizure {15} The Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution “simply state[ ] a right-the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 444 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1065 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2006Cf. State v. Wilson, 92 N.M. 54, 55-56 , 582 P.2d 826, 827-28 (Ct.App.1978) (stating that a right to refuse the taking of blood may be an enlargement of a constitutional right, and holding that whether it was or not an enlargement of a constitutional right, the right was granted by the Legislature and violation of the statute granting the right required exclusion of the blood sample). 2006Cf. State v. Wilson, 92 N.M. 54, 55-56 , 582 P.2d 826, 827-28 (Ct.App.1978) (stating that a right to refuse the taking of blood may be an enlargement of a constitutional right, and holding that whether it was or not an enlargement of a constitutional right, the right was granted by the Legislature and violation of the statute granting the right required exclusion of the blood sample). | 1 | 1 |
Southwest Community Health Services v. Smithgreen2 sentences2005Instead, we have exercised our superintending control under Article YI, Section 3, to revoke or amend a statutory provision when the statutory provision conflicts with an existing court rule, see Southwest Community Health Services v. Smith, 107 N.M. 196, 198 , 755 P.2d 40, 42 (1988) (“[w]hile, historically, the judiciary has shared procedural rule-making with the legislature, any conflict between court rules and statutes that relate to procedure are today resolved by this Court in favor of the rules”), or constitutional provision, see State ex rel. 2005Instead, we have exercised our superintending control under Article YI, Section 3, to revoke or amend a statutory provision when the statutory provision conflicts with an existing court rule, see Southwest Community Health Services v. Smith, 107 N.M. 196, 198 , 755 P.2d 40, 42 (1988) (“[w]hile, historically, the judiciary has shared procedural rule-making with the legislature, any conflict between court rules and statutes that relate to procedure are today resolved by this Court in favor of the rules”), or constitutional provision, see State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Mowrer v. Ruskgreen2 sentences1999We conclude that these criteria are met in this case because we limit the exercise of our jurisdiction to the purely legal issue of whether the REI Order, on its face, exceeds the NMPUC’s statutory authority and intrudes upon the province of the Legislature in violation of Article III, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution. {12} With regard to this issue, the Court has recognized that Article III, Section 1 of our state constitution “allows some overlap in the exercise of governmental function.” Mowrer v. Rusk, 95 N.M. 48, 53 , 618 P.2d 886, 891 (1980). 1999We conclude that these criteria are met in this case because we limit the exercise of our jurisdiction to the purely legal issue of whether the REI Order, on its face, exceeds the NMPUC’s statutory authority and intrudes upon the province of the Legislature in violation of Article III, Section 1 of the New Mexico Constitution. {12} With regard to this issue, the Court has recognized that Article III, Section 1 of our state constitution “allows some overlap in the exercise of governmental function.” Mowrer v. Rusk, 95 N.M. 48, 53 , 618 P.2d 886, 891 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Torres v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Thus, while paying heed to “the unique position of the Legislature in creating and developing public policy,” Taylor, 1998-NMSC-015 , ¶ 21, 125 N.M. 343 , 961 P.2d 768 , the Court has acknowledged that “[ejlected executive officials and executive agencies also make policy, to a lesser extent, as authorized by the constitution or the legislature,” Torres v. State, 119 N.M. 609, 612 , 894 P.2d 386, 389 (1995). 1999Thus, while paying heed to “the unique position of the Legislature in creating and developing public policy,” Taylor, 1998-NMSC-015 , ¶ 21, 125 N.M. 343 , 961 P.2d 768 , the Court has acknowledged that “[ejlected executive officials and executive agencies also make policy, to a lesser extent, as authorized by the constitution or the legislature,” Torres v. State, 119 N.M. 609, 612 , 894 P.2d 386, 389 (1995). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Encinias v. Whitener Law Firm, P.A.
green
1 sentence2024Recognizing the guidance is primarily applicable to courts at the summary judgment stage, we reiterate that “Section 41-4-6(A) incorporates the concepts of premises liability found in our case law,” and the Legislature’s instruction that “[l]iability . . . under the [TCA is] based upon the traditional tort concepts,” Encinias, 2013-NMSC-045, ¶ 9 ; Section 41-4- 2(B). {58} In the context of premises liability for the building waiver, the duty of ordinary care originates with the property but is not limited by geography or a physical defect on the property. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Comitz
green
1 sentence2023“At trial, the state has an opportunity to overcome the Legislature’s presumption of singularity, but doing so requires the state to carry a heavy burden.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {6} The State may overcome this presumption through a totality of the circumstances test. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Comitz
green
1 sentence2021The Court further concluded, “At trial, the state has an opportunity to overcome the Legislature’s presumption of singularity, but doing so requires the state to carry a heavy burden.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Public Service Co. v. Diamond D Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2019Const. Co., 2001-NMCA-082, ¶ 49 , 131 N.M. 100 , 33 P.3d 651 (stating when a statute is ambiguous we must “resort to principles of statutory construction to ascertain the [L]egislature’s intent”). {14} Taxpayer also contends that the AHO improperly considered the intent of the Legislature in her analysis, as there was no ambiguity, need to correct a mistake, or absurdity in the application of the statute that required her to resort to the consideration of legislative intent. 2019Const. Co., 2001-NMCA-082, ¶ 49 , 131 N.M. 100 , 33 P.3d 651 (stating when a statute is ambiguous we must “resort to principles of statutory construction to ascertain the [L]egislature’s intent”). {14} Taxpayer also contends that the AHO improperly considered the intent of the Legislature in her analysis, as there was no ambiguity, need to correct a mistake, or absurdity in the application of the statute that required her to resort to the consideration of legislative intent. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Grassie v. Roswell Hospital Corp.
green
2 sentences2009We thus concluded from Blackmer that “if a legislative rule affects arguably the same subject matter as a Supreme Court rule, courts must consider whether the purpose of the Legislature’s rule is consistent with the Supreme Court rule.” Grassie, 2008-NMCA-076, ¶ 10 , 144 N.M. 241 , 185 P.3d 1091 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2009We thus concluded from Blackmer that “if a legislative rule affects arguably the same subject matter as a Supreme Court rule, courts must consider whether the purpose of the Legislature’s rule is consistent with the Supreme Court rule.” Grassie, 2008-NMCA-076, ¶ 10 , 144 N.M. 241 , 185 P.3d 1091 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1999Thus, while paying heed to “the unique position of the Legislature in creating and developing public policy,” Taylor, 1998-NMSC-015 , ¶ 21, 125 N.M. 343 , 961 P.2d 768 , the Court has acknowledged that “[ejlected executive officials and executive agencies also make policy, to a lesser extent, as authorized by the constitution or the legislature,” Torres v. State, 119 N.M. 609, 612 , 894 P.2d 386, 389 (1995). 1999Thus, while paying heed to “the unique position of the Legislature in creating and developing public policy,” Taylor, 1998-NMSC-015 , ¶ 21, 125 N.M. 343 , 961 P.2d 768 , the Court has acknowledged that “[ejlected executive officials and executive agencies also make policy, to a lesser extent, as authorized by the constitution or the legislature,” Torres v. State, 119 N.M. 609, 612 , 894 P.2d 386, 389 (1995). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm
green
2 sentences1988Assembly, 704 P.2d at 1377 , "the delicate constitutional balance between the executive and the legislative branches of government" would be upset if *1384 we were to hold that the legislature may not challenge a gubernatorial veto until it has attempted by a two-thirds vote to enact a law which it initially was authorized to accomplish by a simply majority. 1988Assembly, 704 P.2d at 1377 , “the delicate constitutional balance between the executive and the legislative branches of government” would be upset if we were to hold that the legislature may not challenge a gubernatorial veto until it has attempted by a two-thirds vote to enact a law which it initially was authorized to accomplish by a simply majority. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State Ex Rel. Conway v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1969Conway v. Superior Court, 60 Ariz. 69 , 131 P.2d 983 ; and De Camp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 47 Ariz. 517 , 57 P.2d 311 , holding that under significantly different constitutional language, both the courts and the legislature have rule-making power. 1969Conway v. Superior Court, 60 Ariz. 69 , 131 P.2d 983 ; and De Camp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 47 Ariz. 517 , 57 P.2d 311 , holding that under significantly different constitutional language, both the courts and the legislature have rule-making power. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
DeCamp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
green
2 sentences1969Conway v. Superior Court, 60 Ariz. 69 , 131 P.2d 983 ; and De Camp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 47 Ariz. 517 , 57 P.2d 311 , holding that under significantly different constitutional language, both the courts and the legislature have rule-making power. 1969Conway v. Superior Court, 60 Ariz. 69 , 131 P.2d 983 ; and De Camp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 47 Ariz. 517 , 57 P.2d 311 , holding that under significantly different constitutional language, both the courts and the legislature have rule-making power. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Jordan v. Jordan
green
2 sentences1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . 1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Singleton v. Sanabrea
neutral
2 sentences1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . 1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Gutierrez v. Brady
green
2 sentences1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . 1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Hoover v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . 1960“But as heretofore suggested, these considerations must be addressed to the Legislature or the rule-making power which would doubtless speak prospectively.” In this quotation must lie the distinction between the case there being decided and the cases of Hoover v. City of Albuquerque, 56 N.M. 525 , 245 P.2d 1038 ; Jordan v. Jordan, 29 N.M. 95 , 218 P. 1035 ; Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N.M. 205 , 292 P. 6 ; and Gutierrez v. Brady, 45 N.M. 209 , 113 P.2d 585 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.