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 1975–2025 1 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. Wiberggreen2 sentences2018Because the district court has a “great deal of discretion in dismissing a juror 18 for cause, . . . its decision will not be disturbed absent a manifest error or clear abuse 7 1 of that discretion.” State v. Wiberg, 1988-NMCA-022 , ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 152 , 754 P.2d 2 529 . 1993State v. Wiberg, 107 N.M. 152, 156 , 754 P.2d 529, 533 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 106 , 753 P.2d 352 (1988). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Frygreen2 sentences2010“We will not disturb the trial court’s decision 4 absent a clear abuse of discretion or a manifest error.” Id. (internal quotation marks 5 and citation omitted). 6 We explained that although it may have been more prudent for the district court 7 to have excused these jurors, we could not say that Defendant clearly demonstrated 8 an abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusing to strike them for cause. 2009“We will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent a clear 16 abuse of discretion or a manifest error.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 17 omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2019See Clark, 1999-NMSC-035 , ¶ 12 12 (holding that there was no abuse of discretion where jurors were excused, not 13 because they were members of a particular religion, but rather because they were 14 unable to apply the law). 15 VI. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2011See State v. Garcia, 2005-NMSC-038, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 659 , 125 8 P.3d 638 . 9 Based on the record before us, it appears that the remaining members of 10 Defendant’s jury were not exposed to the prejudicial comments made by one 11 prospective juror. 2011See State v. Garcia, 2005-NMSC-038, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 659 , 125 8 P.3d 638 . 9 Based on the record before us, it appears that the remaining members of 10 Defendant’s jury were not exposed to the prejudicial comments made by one 11 prospective juror. | 1 | 1 |
Lienhart v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2003See Lienhart, 255 F.3d at 145-46. | 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. Sutphin
green
2 sentences2020Thus, “[w]e will not disturb the [district] court’s decision absent a clear abuse of discretion or a manifest error.” State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031 , ¶ 16, 107 N.M. 126 , 753 P.2d 1314 . {22} Defense counsel did not object to the district court’s decision allowing the juror to remain on the jury panel, nor did he provide any evidence to rebut the juror’s statement that she could be fair and impartial and decide the case based on the facts. 2020Thus, “[w]e will not disturb the [district] court’s decision absent a clear abuse of discretion or a manifest error.” State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031 , ¶ 16, 107 N.M. 126 , 753 P.2d 1314 . {22} Defense counsel did not object to the district court’s decision allowing the juror to remain on the jury panel, nor did he provide any evidence to rebut the juror’s statement that she could be fair and impartial and decide the case based on the facts. | 5 | 1999–2020 |
State v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2016An abuse of 16 discretion occurs where a court commits manifest error, and it is a manifest error to 17 deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where “the undisputed facts establish that the 18 plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given.” Id. (quoting State v. Garcia, 1996- 19 NMSC-013, ¶ 7, 121 N.M. 544 , 915 P.2d 300 ). 2010Defendant contends that a request to withdraw 11 a guilty plea made prior to sentencing need only be supported by a “fair and just 12 reason.” [MIO 13-14] Our Supreme Court rejected that standard for motions to 13 withdraw a guilty plea made prior to sentencing, stating that the manifest error 14 standard “has been applied on appeal to all motions to withdraw a plea, whether prior 15 to or following sentencing.” State v. Hunter, 2006-NMSC-043, ¶ 11 , 140 N.M. 406 , 16 143 P.3d 168 . | 3 | 2010–2016 |
State v. Cutnose
green
2 sentences1988State v. Cutnose, 87 N.M. 300 , 532 P.2d 889 (Ct.App.1975), overruled on other grounds, State v. McCormack, 100 N.M. 657 , 674 P.2d 1117 (1984). 1988State v. Cutnose, 87 N.M. 300 , 532 P.2d 889 (Ct.App.1975), overruled on other grounds, State v. McCormack, 100 N.M. 657 , 674 P.2d 1117 (1984). | 2 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2025The burden of establishing an abuse of discretion rests on the moving party.” Id. (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2016An abuse of 16 discretion occurs where a court commits manifest error, and it is a manifest error to 17 deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where “the undisputed facts establish that the 18 plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given.” Id. (quoting State v. Garcia, 1996- 19 NMSC-013, ¶ 7, 121 N.M. 544 , 915 P.2d 300 ). 2016An abuse of 16 discretion occurs where a court commits manifest error, and it is a manifest error to 17 deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where “the undisputed facts establish that the 18 plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given.” Id. (quoting State v. Garcia, 1996- 19 NMSC-013, ¶ 7, 121 N.M. 544 , 915 P.2d 300 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Escobar-Urrego
green
1 sentence2000Cf. United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir.1997) (noting failure to appeal issue; applying law of case; concluding that no exceptions to law of the case doctrine apply). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences1999The United States Supreme Court also emphasized that "deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror." Witt, 469 U.S. at 426 , 105 S.Ct. 844 . {6} The State notes that Clark stipulated in the trial court that several jurors were properly excluded, waiving his argument regarding these individuals on appeal. 1999The United States Supreme Court also emphasized that "deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror." Witt, 469 U.S. at 426 , 105 S.Ct. 844 . {6} The State notes that Clark stipulated in the trial court that several jurors were properly excluded, waiving his argument regarding these individuals on appeal. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences1988State v. Martinez, 95 N.M. 445 , 623 P.2d 565 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Fuson v. State, 105 N.M. 632 , 735 P.2d 1138 (1987). 1988State v. Martinez, 95 N.M. 445 , 623 P.2d 565 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Fuson v. State, 105 N.M. 632 , 735 P.2d 1138 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. McCormack
green
2 sentences1988State v. Cutnose, 87 N.M. 300 , 532 P.2d 889 (Ct.App.1975), overruled on other grounds, State v. McCormack, 100 N.M. 657 , 674 P.2d 1117 (1984). 1988State v. Cutnose, 87 N.M. 300 , 532 P.2d 889 (Ct.App.1975), overruled on other grounds, State v. McCormack, 100 N.M. 657 , 674 P.2d 1117 (1984). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Fuson v. State
green
2 sentences1988State v. Martinez, 95 N.M. 445 , 623 P.2d 565 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Fuson v. State, 105 N.M. 632 , 735 P.2d 1138 (1987). 1988State v. Martinez, 95 N.M. 445 , 623 P.2d 565 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Fuson v. State, 105 N.M. 632 , 735 P.2d 1138 (1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Valdez
green
2 sentences1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1972), aff’d, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). 1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1972), aff’d, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Goodson v. Davis
green
2 sentences1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App. 1972), aff'd, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). 1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1972), aff’d, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Flint v. Howard
green
2 sentences1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App. 1972), aff'd, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). 1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1972), aff’d, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Valdez v. State
green
2 sentences1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1972), aff’d, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). 1975State v. Valdez, 83 N.M. 632 , 495 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1972), aff’d, 83 N.M. 720 , 497 P.2d 231 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077 , 93 S.Ct. 694 , 34 L.Ed.2d 666 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.