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.
18 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Martha S. French v. Stratford Housegreen2 sentences2014See UJI 13-1119A Comm. cmt. (“Distinguishing claims that need not be established by expert testimony from those that must is a task to be accomplished by the trial judge on a case[-]by[-]case basis.”); see also Estate of French, 333 S.W.3d at 556 (“[Wjhether claims should be characterized as ordinary negligence or medical malpractice claims obviously depends heavily on the facts of each individual case.”); Joseph, 11 So. 3d at 917 (“A court must, on a case-by-case basis, look to the allegations in the complaint when determining whether a suit raises an issue of ordinary negligence ormedical ma 2014See UJI 13-1119A Comm. cmt. (“Distinguishing claims that need not be established by expert testimony from those that must is a task to be accomplished by the trial judge on a case[-]by[-]case basis.”); see also Estate of French, 333 S.W.3d at 556 (“[W]hether claims should be characterized as ordinary negligence or medical malpractice claims obviously depends heavily on the facts of each individual case.”); Joseph, 71 So. 3d at 917 (“A court must, on a case-by-case basis, look to the allegations in the complaint when determining whether a suit raises an issue of ordinary negligence or medical m | 5 | 5 |
Joseph v. University Behavioral LLCgreen2 sentences2014See UJI 13-1119A Comm. cmt. (“Distinguishing claims that need not be established by expert testimony from those that must is a task to be accomplished by the trial judge on a case[-]by[-]case basis.”); see also Estate of French, 333 S.W.3d at 556 (“[W]hether claims should be characterized as ordinary negligence or medical malpractice claims obviously depends heavily on the facts of each individual case.”); Joseph, 71 So. 3d at 917 (“A court must, on a case-by-case basis, look to the allegations in the complaint when determining whether a suit raises an issue of ordinary negligence or medical m 2014See UJI 13-1119A Comm. cmt. (“Distinguishing claims that need not be established by expert testimony from those that must is a task to be accomplished by the trial judge on a case[-]by[-]case basis.”); see also Estate of French, 333 S.W.3d at 556 (“[W]hether claims should be characterized as ordinary negligence or medical malpractice claims obviously depends heavily on the facts of each individual case.”); Joseph, 71 So. 3d at 917 (“A court must, on a case-by-case basis, look to the allegations in the complaint when 7 determining whether a suit raises an issue of ordinary negligence or medical | 4 | 4 |
Jerald W. Freeman, the Tea Leaf Inc. v. Fairchildgreen2 sentences2024See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 35 , 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that the case was not well-suited to the application of the right for any reason doctrine because in part “[t]he appellate court would need to undertake a fact-dependent inquiry to accurately determine whether [a party] made a sufficient prima facie showing under [particular] law”). 2024See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023 , 7 ¶ 35, 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that the case was not well-suited to the application 8 of the right for any reason doctrine because in part “[t]he appellate court would need 9 to undertake a fact-dependent inquiry to accurately determine whether [a party] 10 made a sufficient prima facie showing under [particular] law”). | 2 | 3 |
Freeman v. Fairchildgreen2 sentences2024See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 35 , 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that the case was not well-suited to the application of the right for any reason doctrine because in part “[t]he appellate court would need to undertake a fact-dependent inquiry to accurately determine whether [a party] made a sufficient prima facie showing under [particular] law”). 2024See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023 , 7 ¶ 35, 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that the case was not well-suited to the application 8 of the right for any reason doctrine because in part “[t]he appellate court would need 9 to undertake a fact-dependent inquiry to accurately determine whether [a party] 10 made a sufficient prima facie showing under [particular] law”). | 2 | 2 |
Meiboom v. Watsongreen2 sentences2018See Meiboom , 2000-NMSC-004 , ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (stating that the appellate court should not delve into fact-dependent inquiries). 2018See Meiboom , 2000-NMSC-004 , ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (stating that the appellate court should not delve into fact-dependent inquiries). | 2 | 2 |
Richter v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs.green1 sentence2019However, expert testimony is not required in cases alleging ordinary negligence: “Where the matter is potentially susceptible to the common knowledge of the jury, expert testimony is not necessary to establish that the hospital’s conduct was negligent.” Rule 13-1119A NMRA, comm. cmt.; see Richter v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 2014-NMCA-056, ¶ 24 , 326 P.3d 50 (“[W]hether a claim involves ordinary negligence or medical malpractice is a fact-dependent inquiry.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Celusniakgreen2 sentences2012See State v. 3 Celusniak, 2004-NMCA-070, ¶ 26 , 135 N.M. 728 , 93 P.3d 10 . 2012See State v. 3 Celusniak, 2004-NMCA-070, ¶ 26 , 135 N.M. 728 , 93 P.3d 10 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Franksgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Franks, 119 N.M. 174, 177 , 889 P.2d 209, 212 (Ct.App.1994). 2006See State v. Franks, 119 N.M. 174, 177 , 889 P.2d 209, 212 (Ct.App.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Britt Airways, Inc.green1 sentence2002See Draper, 47 A.L.R.4th, at 680 ; see also Jones, 622 F.Supp. at 391 (stating courts that recognize the intracorporate communication exception to publication “apparently confuse[] the issues of publication and privilege”). {13} Qualified privilege applies when a statement is made in good faith during the discharge of a public or private duty. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
NRA Special Contribution Fund v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2013Second, unlike a fact-dependent analysis of whether a property is used “primar[ily] and substantial[ly]” for educational purposes to provide a “substantial” public benefit, NRA, 92 N.M. at 547-48 , 591 P.2d at 678-79 , whether a soldier was honorably discharged as of a certain date is a binary question. 2013Second, unlike a fact-dependent analysis of whether a property is used “primar[ily] and substantial[ly]” for educational purposes to provide a “substantial” public benefit, NRA, 92 N.M. at 547-48 , 591 P.2d at 678-79 , whether a soldier was honorably discharged as of a certain date is a binary question. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Rodriguez v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2023Rodarte v. Sanchez, 2019-NMCA-065, ¶ 25 , 451 P.3d 105 (“On appeal, this Court will not assume the role of the trial court and delve into such a fact- dependent inquiry.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {4} Turning to Defendants’ contention that the district court erred in failing to apply comparative fault and the duty to mitigate in calculating damages, we are similarly unpersuaded. [MIO 3-6] Even assuming the district court was required to consider comparative fault when calculating the damages award, Defendants have not pointed to anything in the record indic 2023Rodarte v. Sanchez, 2019-NMCA-065, ¶ 25 , 451 P.3d 105 (“On appeal, this Court will not assume the role of the trial court and delve into such a fact- dependent inquiry.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {4} Turning to Defendants’ contention that the district court erred in failing to apply comparative fault and the duty to mitigate in calculating damages, we are similarly unpersuaded. [MIO 3-6] Even assuming the district court was required to consider comparative fault when calculating the damages award, Defendants have not pointed to anything in the record indic | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pinnell v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2019Comm’rs of Santa Fe Cty., 1999-NMCA-074, ¶ 14 , 127 N.M. 452 , 982 P.2d 503 . {26} Moreover, we disagree with Defendant that the statute of limitations is jurisdictional in this case. 2019Comm’rs of Santa Fe Cty., 1999-NMCA-074, ¶ 14 , 127 N.M. 452 , 982 P.2d 503 . {26} Moreover, we disagree with Defendant that the statute of limitations is jurisdictional in this case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.