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.
19 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Britton v. Office of the Att'y Gen.green2 sentences2024While statutory silence may often 3 permit us to infer legislative intent, we cannot, and will not, interpret IPRA in a 4 manner that undermines its expressly stated and strongly reiterated public policy. 5 See Britton, 2019-NMCA-002, ¶ 29 (“The starting point for any court tasked with 6 resolving an IPRA challenge is to place into statutory context the particular 7 arguments made vis-à-vis the Legislature’s declared purpose in enacting IPRA.”). 8 {55} Defendants, therefore, improperly denied the Journal’s request at the time of 9 their response stating that they did not have any responsive do 2024While statutory silence may often 3 permit us to infer legislative intent, we cannot, and will not, interpret IPRA in a 4 manner that undermines its expressly stated and strongly reiterated public policy. 5 See Britton, 2019-NMCA-002, ¶ 29 (“The starting point for any court tasked with 6 resolving an IPRA challenge is to place into statutory context the particular 7 arguments made vis-à-vis the Legislature’s declared purpose in enacting IPRA.”). 8 {55} Defendants, therefore, improperly denied the Journal’s request at the time of 9 their response stating that they did not have any responsive do | 3 | 4 |
Republican Party v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Departmentgreen2 sentences2024Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see id. ¶ 16 (stating that courts analyzing an IPRA claim must “restrict their analysis to whether disclosure under IPRA may be withheld because of a specific exception contained within IPRA, or statutory or regulatory exceptions”). {8} The Corrections Department Act allows the Secretary of Corrections (the Secretary) to “make and adopt such reasonable and procedural rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the department and its divisions.” Section 9- 3-5(E). 2024Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see id. ¶ 16 (stating that courts analyzing an IPRA claim must “restrict their analysis to whether disclosure under IPRA may be withheld because of a specific exception contained within IPRA, or statutory or regulatory exceptions”). {8} The Corrections Department Act allows the Secretary of Corrections (the Secretary) to “make and adopt such reasonable and procedural rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the department and its divisions.” Section 9- 3-5(E). | 2 | 2 |
Faber v. Kinggreen2 sentences2015See generally Faber v. King, 2013-NMCA-080 , 306 P.3d 519 . 2015See generally Faber v. King, 2013-NMCA-080 , 306 P.3d 519 . | 2 | 2 |
ACLU of New Mexico v. Durangreen2 sentences2022“Our IPRA jurisprudence contemplates in camera review in circumstances in which the applicability of a disclosure exception is in question.” Duran, 2016-NMCA-063 , ¶ 45. 2019See ACLU of N.M., 2016-NMCA-063, ¶ 27 (discussing how liability for failure to produce a public record in response to an IPRA request hinges on whether the public record was identified with reasonable particularity within the request). {47} Based on the record before us, the only public records produced after the district court’s later reversed dismissal of Plaintiff’s enforcement complaint that may serve as a basis for an IPRA violation and warrant an award of costs and attorney fees are the documents KNME and UNM made available for inspection in October 2013. | 1 | 4 |
Jones v. N.M. Dep't of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2026Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104 , 7 ¶ 22, 287 P.3d 364 (“We emphasize . . . that IPRA should be construed broadly to 8 effectuate its purposes, and courts should avoid narrow definitions that would defeat 9 the intent of the Legislature.”); Jones, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 38, 40 (reversing the 10 district court’s interpretation of an IPRA exception that was “untethered from the 11 plain language of [the exception] and overbroad”). 12 {23} Looking to whether the Padilla Report may contain information that is exempt 13 under the text and purpose of Section 14-2-1(C), we note that 2026Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104 , 7 ¶ 22, 287 P.3d 364 (“We emphasize . . . that IPRA should be construed broadly to 8 effectuate its purposes, and courts should avoid narrow definitions that would defeat 9 the intent of the Legislature.”); Jones, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 38, 40 (reversing the 10 district court’s interpretation of an IPRA exception that was “untethered from the 11 plain language of [the exception] and overbroad”). 12 {23} Looking to whether the Padilla Report may contain information that is exempt 13 under the text and purpose of Section 14-2-1(C), we note that | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Adoption of Doegreen2 sentences2022See In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 (holding that issues “unsupported by cited authority will not be reviewed by us on appeal”). [CN 2] In his memorandum in opposition to that disposition, Petitioner continues to cite no authority for this proposition, and instead merely suggests that it was unreasonable to send a CD without a cover letter. 2022See In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 (holding that issues “unsupported by cited authority will not be reviewed by us on appeal”). [CN 2] In his memorandum in opposition to that disposition, Petitioner continues to cite no authority for this proposition, and instead merely suggests that it was unreasonable to send a CD without a cover letter. | 1 | 1 |
Hennessy v. Duryeagreen2 sentences2017See 10 Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our 11 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 12 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). 13 {6} Additionally, Plaintiff argues she is not required to file a brief to prove that she 14 has a right to sue the Proposed State Defendants, and also that no briefs have been 15 filed to establish (1) futility, (2) that there has not been a waiver of governmental 16 immunity, and (3) that the Proposed State Defendants did not violate th 2017See 10 Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our 11 courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party 12 opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). 13 {6} Additionally, Plaintiff argues she is not required to file a brief to prove that she 14 has a right to sue the Proposed State Defendants, and also that no briefs have been 15 filed to establish (1) futility, (2) that there has not been a waiver of governmental 16 immunity, and (3) that the Proposed State Defendants did not violate th | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crutchfield v. New Mexico Department of Taxation & Revenue
green
2 sentences2023Dep’t of Tax’n & 7 Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 36 , 137 N.M. 26 , 106 P.3d 1273 (“A reviewing court 8 generally does not decide academic or moot questions.”). 9 CONCLUSION 10 {25} We reverse the district court’s determination that attorney-client privilege 11 exempts the January 7 email from inspection under IPRA, and remand this matter 12 for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2023Dep’t of Tax’n & 7 Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 36 , 137 N.M. 26 , 106 P.3d 1273 (“A reviewing court 8 generally does not decide academic or moot questions.”). 9 CONCLUSION 10 {25} We reverse the district court’s determination that attorney-client privilege 11 exempts the January 7 email from inspection under IPRA, and remand this matter 12 for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences
green
2 sentences2026Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104 , 7 ¶ 22, 287 P.3d 364 (“We emphasize . . . that IPRA should be construed broadly to 8 effectuate its purposes, and courts should avoid narrow definitions that would defeat 9 the intent of the Legislature.”); Jones, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 38, 40 (reversing the 10 district court’s interpretation of an IPRA exception that was “untethered from the 11 plain language of [the exception] and overbroad”). 12 {23} Looking to whether the Padilla Report may contain information that is exempt 13 under the text and purpose of Section 14-2-1(C), we note that 2026Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences, 2012-NMCA-104 , 7 ¶ 22, 287 P.3d 364 (“We emphasize . . . that IPRA should be construed broadly to 8 effectuate its purposes, and courts should avoid narrow definitions that would defeat 9 the intent of the Legislature.”); Jones, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶¶ 38, 40 (reversing the 10 district court’s interpretation of an IPRA exception that was “untethered from the 11 plain language of [the exception] and overbroad”). 12 {23} Looking to whether the Padilla Report may contain information that is exempt 13 under the text and purpose of Section 14-2-1(C), we note that | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Vest
green
2 sentences2026We therefore “give 15 those words their ordinary meaning absent clear and express legislative intention to 16 the contrary.” State v Vest, 2021-NMSC-020 , ¶ 14, 488 P.3d 626 (text only) (citation 17 omitted). 2026We therefore “give 15 those words their ordinary meaning absent clear and express legislative intention to 16 the contrary.” State v Vest, 2021-NMSC-020 , ¶ 14, 488 P.3d 626 (text only) (citation 17 omitted). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences2024Sheriff Gonzales Has Not Met His Burden to Reverse the District Court’s Decision to Dismiss His CRA Bill of Rights Claim or His IPRA Claim {8} In one paragraph in his briefing to this Court, Sheriff Gonzales argues that the district court erred in dismissing both his CRA Bill of Rights claim and his IPRA claim. “[I]t is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.” Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 . 2024Sheriff Gonzales Has Not Met His Burden to Reverse the District Court’s Decision to Dismiss His CRA Bill of Rights Claim or His IPRA Claim {8} In one paragraph in his briefing to this Court, Sheriff Gonzales argues that the district court erred in dismissing both his CRA Bill of Rights claim and his IPRA claim. “[I]t is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.” Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Britton v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of N.M.
green
2 sentences2022Instead, citing Britton v. Office of Attorney General, 2019-NMCA-002 , 433 P.3d 320 , Plaintiff contends that Defendant waived the opportunity to assert that IPRA exception because it was not set forth in the initial response. 2022Instead, citing Britton v. Office of Attorney General, 2019-NMCA-002 , 433 P.3d 320 , Plaintiff contends that Defendant waived the opportunity to assert that IPRA exception because it was not set forth in the initial response. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Republican Party of N.M. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't
green
2 sentences2020Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2010-NMCA-080, ¶ 16 , 148 N.M. 877 , 242 P.3d 444 (involving no dispute that the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division collected and kept public records containing drivers’ personal information related to issuing drivers’ licenses that would have been subject to disclosure provided there was no applicable exception; namely, the federal and state privacy acts that protect the private information related to drivers and list a number of exceptions that may apply to the redacted personal information), rev’d on other grounds, 2012-NMSC-026, ¶¶ 4, 11, 13 , 283 P.3d 853 (indicat 2020Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2010-NMCA-080, ¶ 16 , 148 N.M. 877 , 242 P.3d 444 (involving no dispute that the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division collected and kept public records containing drivers’ personal information related to issuing drivers’ licenses that would have been subject to disclosure provided there was no applicable exception; namely, the federal and state privacy acts that protect the private information related to drivers and list a number of exceptions that may apply to the redacted personal information), rev’d on other grounds, 2012-NMSC-026, ¶¶ 4, 11, 13 , 283 P.3d 853 (indicat | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Republican Party of NM v. NM TAXATION
neutral
1 sentence2020Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 2010-NMCA-080, ¶ 16 , 148 N.M. 877 , 242 P.3d 444 (involving no dispute that the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division collected and kept public records containing drivers’ personal information related to issuing drivers’ licenses that would have been subject to disclosure provided there was no applicable exception; namely, the federal and state privacy acts that protect the private information related to drivers and list a number of exceptions that may apply to the redacted personal information), rev’d on other grounds, 2012-NMSC-026, ¶¶ 4, 11, 13 , 283 P.3d 853 (indicat | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Faber v. King
green
1 sentence2019Faber, 2015-NMSC-015, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Board of Education, Rio Rancho Public School District v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2018Cobb v. Gammon, 2017-NMCA-022 , ¶ 13, 389 P.3d 1058 (“An issue 2 is moot when no actual controversy exists, and the court cannot grant actual relief.”); 3 Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson, 1998-NMCA-048, ¶ 5 , 125 N.M. 91 , 957 P.2d 76 (“[A] party 4 waives her right to appeal when she accepts the benefits of a judgment.” (internal 5 quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2018Cobb v. Gammon, 2017-NMCA-022 , ¶ 13, 389 P.3d 1058 (“An issue 2 is moot when no actual controversy exists, and the court cannot grant actual relief.”); 3 Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson, 1998-NMCA-048, ¶ 5 , 125 N.M. 91 , 957 P.2d 76 (“[A] party 4 waives her right to appeal when she accepts the benefits of a judgment.” (internal 5 quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal MacHine & Fabricating, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Additionally, we proposed to conclude that 3 1 Plaintiff had not demonstrated that the district court erred in denying her motion to 2 amend the complaint to add an IPRA claim. [CN 5] See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. 3 & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that 4 the appellate courts presume that the district court is correct and the burden is on the 5 appellant to clearly demonstrate that the lower court erred). 6 {5} In her response, Plaintiff primarily reiterates the arguments she made in her 7 docketing statement and motion to reconsider. [See generall 2017Additionally, we proposed to conclude that 3 1 Plaintiff had not demonstrated that the district court erred in denying her motion to 2 amend the complaint to add an IPRA claim. [CN 5] See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. 3 & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that 4 the appellate courts presume that the district court is correct and the burden is on the 5 appellant to clearly demonstrate that the lower court erred). 6 {5} In her response, Plaintiff primarily reiterates the arguments she made in her 7 docketing statement and motion to reconsider. [See generall | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Southwest Community Health Services v. Smith
green
2 sentences2006Although we will recognize limited immunity from discovery we will not “impinge upon the right of litigants to have their disputes decided on relevant and material evidence.” Southwest Cmty. Health Serv., 107 N.M. at 200 , 755 P.2d at 44 . 2006Although we will recognize limited immunity from discovery we will not “impinge upon the right of litigants to have their disputes decided on relevant and material evidence.” Southwest Cmty. Health Serv., 107 N.M. at 200 , 755 P.2d at 44 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.