17 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKay v. Capital Resources Co. Ltd.green2 sentences2006Plaintiffs rely on the Arkansas case of McKay v. Capital Resources Co., 327 Ark. 737 , 940 S.W.2d 869, 871 (1997), in which the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a party could not enforce a promissory note when it had failed to produce the original note or explain its absence. 2006Plaintiffs rely on the Arkansas case of McKay v. Capital Resources Co., 327 Ark. 737 , 940 S.W.2d 869, 871 (1997), in which the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a party could not enforce a promissory note when it had failed to produce the original note or explain its absence. | 2 | 2 |
Perrin v. Andersongreen2 sentences1993See Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F.2d 1040, 1045 (10th Cir.1986); SCRA 11-405. 1992See Fed.R.Evid. 404 advisory committee's note.) Although there is authority directly to the contrary in interpreting identical language in Federal Rule of Evidence 405, e.g., Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F.2d 1040, 1045 (10th Cir.1986), the Baca court relied on a pre-rule opinion, State v. Ardoin, 28 N.M. 641 , 216 P. 1048 (1923), as authority for admitting evidence of specific acts of violence, subject only to the general requirements of Rule 11-403. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-036 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 63 , 920 12 1 P.2d 1017 (“There is, however, an exception to this general rule that failure to include 2 an essential element in an instruction for a crime constitutes fundamental error. 2011See State v. Brown, 1996-NMSC-073, ¶ 34 , 122 N.M. 16 724, 931 P.2d 69 (holding that “[w]hen evidence at trial supports the giving of an 17 instruction on a defendant’s theory of the case, failure to so instruct is reversible 18 error” (emphasis added)); State v. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-036 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 63 , 920 19 P.2d 1017 (recognizing that the failure to include an essential element in an instruction 6 1 for a crime does not constitute fundamental error “when the element that was omitted 2 from the instruction was not at issue in the trial” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Maplesgreen1 sentence2018See State v. Samora, 9 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 45 , 387 P.3d 230 (confirming that district court properly excluded 10 names of victim’s prior felonies while still allowing the defendant to refer to the 11 existence of those convictions); see also State v. Trejo, 1991-NMCA-143 , ¶ 14, 113 12 N.M. 342 , 825 P.2d 1252 (noting that the defendant could have mitigated unfair 13 prejudice caused by evidence of prior convictions by requesting that the jury not be 14 told the names of the crimes). 15 {16} Evidence of specific instances of a victim’s prior violent conduct may be 16 admissible to show the defen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trejogreen1 sentence2018See State v. Samora, 9 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 45 , 387 P.3d 230 (confirming that district court properly excluded 10 names of victim’s prior felonies while still allowing the defendant to refer to the 11 existence of those convictions); see also State v. Trejo, 1991-NMCA-143 , ¶ 14, 113 12 N.M. 342 , 825 P.2d 1252 (noting that the defendant could have mitigated unfair 13 prejudice caused by evidence of prior convictions by requesting that the jury not be 14 told the names of the crimes). 15 {16} Evidence of specific instances of a victim’s prior violent conduct may be 16 admissible to show the defen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Samoragreen1 sentence2018See State v. Samora, 9 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 45 , 387 P.3d 230 (confirming that district court properly excluded 10 names of victim’s prior felonies while still allowing the defendant to refer to the 11 existence of those convictions); see also State v. Trejo, 1991-NMCA-143 , ¶ 14, 113 12 N.M. 342 , 825 P.2d 1252 (noting that the defendant could have mitigated unfair 13 prejudice caused by evidence of prior convictions by requesting that the jury not be 14 told the names of the crimes). 15 {16} Evidence of specific instances of a victim’s prior violent conduct may be 16 admissible to show the defen | 1 | 1 |
Valles v. Silvermangreen2 sentences2017Cf. 16 Valles v. Silverman, 2004-NMCA-019, ¶¶ 24, 29 , 135 N.M. 91 , 84 P.3d 1056 17 (reminding the plaintiffs that if it was determined, after discovery, that there was 18 insufficient evidence to prove an essential element of their claim, the defendant had 19 the option of pursuing summary judgment). 10 1 {13} Lastly, with respect to our proposed reversal of the district court’s dismissal of 2 Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim [see CN 9-10], MFA Defendants simply argue that 3 we should instead affirm the dismissal if we change our proposed disposition on 4 Plaintiff’s tortious interference 2017Cf. 16 Valles v. Silverman, 2004-NMCA-019, ¶¶ 24, 29 , 135 N.M. 91 , 84 P.3d 1056 17 (reminding the plaintiffs that if it was determined, after discovery, that there was 18 insufficient evidence to prove an essential element of their claim, the defendant had 19 the option of pursuing summary judgment). 10 1 {13} Lastly, with respect to our proposed reversal of the district court’s dismissal of 2 Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim [see CN 9-10], MFA Defendants simply argue that 3 we should instead affirm the dismissal if we change our proposed disposition on 4 Plaintiff’s tortious interference | 1 | 1 |
Mayfield Smithson Enterprises v. Com-Quip, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Mayfield Smithson Enters. v. Com-Quip, Inc., 120 N.M. 9, 16 , 896 P.2d 1156, 1163 (1995) (“Summary judgment is appropriate when a defendant negates an essential element of the plaintiff’s case by demonstrating the absence of an issue of fact regarding that element.”). {37} Accordingly, we agree with the unanimous Court of Appeals holding that the district court properly dismissed Kehoe’s malicious abuse of process claim because Kehoe failed to establish an essential element of his claim — that LensCrafters’ lawsuit lacked probable cause. 2012See Mayfield Smithson Enters. v. Com-Quip, Inc., 120 N.M. 9, 16 , 896 P.2d 1156, 1163 (1995) (“Summary judgment is appropriate when a defendant negates an essential element of the plaintiff’s case by demonstrating the absence of an issue of fact regarding that element.”). {37} Accordingly, we agree with the unanimous Court of Appeals holding that the district court properly dismissed Kehoe’s malicious abuse of process claim because Kehoe failed to establish an essential element of his claim — that LensCrafters’ lawsuit lacked probable cause. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sutphingreen1 sentence2012This exception applies when the element that was omitted from the instruction 16 was not at issue in the trial.” State v. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-036 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 63 , 17 920 P.2d 1017 ; see Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶ 16 (“[F]undamental error does not 18 occur if the jury was not instructed on an element not at issue in the case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2011Furthermore, the 3 Use Note for UJI 14-925 specifically indicates that the bracketed element of 4 unlawfulness should be used “if the evidence raises a genuine issue of the 5 unlawfulness of the defendant’s actions.” UJI 14-925, Use Note 4; see State v. 6 Barber, 2004-NMSC-019 , ¶ 10 n.1, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (recognizing that 7 unlike committee commentary, the use notes for jury instructions are adopted by our 8 Supreme Court and binding on district courts). 2011Furthermore, the 3 Use Note for UJI 14-925 specifically indicates that the bracketed element of 4 unlawfulness should be used “if the evidence raises a genuine issue of the 5 unlawfulness of the defendant’s actions.” UJI 14-925, Use Note 4; see State v. 6 Barber, 2004-NMSC-019 , ¶ 10 n.1, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (recognizing that 7 unlike committee commentary, the use notes for jury instructions are adopted by our 8 Supreme Court and binding on district courts). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2011See State v. Brown, 1996-NMSC-073, ¶ 34 , 122 N.M. 16 724, 931 P.2d 69 (holding that “[w]hen evidence at trial supports the giving of an 17 instruction on a defendant’s theory of the case, failure to so instruct is reversible 18 error” (emphasis added)); State v. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-036 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 63 , 920 19 P.2d 1017 (recognizing that the failure to include an essential element in an instruction 6 1 for a crime does not constitute fundamental error “when the element that was omitted 2 from the instruction was not at issue in the trial” (emphasis added)). 2011See State v. Brown, 1996-NMSC-073, ¶ 34 , 122 N.M. 16 724, 931 P.2d 69 (holding that “[w]hen evidence at trial supports the giving of an 17 instruction on a defendant’s theory of the case, failure to so instruct is reversible 18 error” (emphasis added)); State v. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-036 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 63 , 920 19 P.2d 1017 (recognizing that the failure to include an essential element in an instruction 6 1 for a crime does not constitute fundamental error “when the element that was omitted 2 from the instruction was not at issue in the trial” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Blauwkamp v. University of New Mexico Hospitalgreen2 sentences2010Hosp., 114 N.M. 228, 232 , 836 P.2d 1249, 1253 (Ct. App. 1992) 3 (holding that the plaintiff’s failure to establish an essential element of a claim is 4 sufficient grounds for summary judgment). 5 In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that 6 Plaintiff could not prevail on his breach of fiduciary claim because he had not 7 established that the relationship between Defendant and him was a fiduciary one. 2010Hosp., 114 N.M. 228, 232 , 836 P.2d 1249, 1253 (Ct. App. 1992) 3 (holding that the plaintiff’s failure to establish an essential element of a claim is 4 sufficient grounds for summary judgment). 5 In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that 6 Plaintiff could not prevail on his breach of fiduciary claim because he had not 7 established that the relationship between Defendant and him was a fiduciary one. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 20 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 (“The only way to correctly instruct the jury in this case is to comply with the applicable Use Note and include as an essential element the requirement that Defendant did not act in self-defense.”); State v. Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, ¶10 , 130 N.M. 670 , 29 P.3d 1071 (holding that the failure to include a reference to self-defense in the elements instruction, as well as the failure to include the appropriate burden of proof in the self-defense instruction, constituted fundamental error); Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 12 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 20 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 (“The only way to correctly instruct the jury in this case is to comply with the applicable Use Note and include as an essential element the requirement that Defendant did not act in self-defense.”); State v. Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, ¶10 , 130 N.M. 670 , 29 P.3d 1071 (holding that the failure to include a reference to self-defense in the elements instruction, as well as the failure to include the appropriate burden of proof in the self-defense instruction, constituted fundamental error); Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 12 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences1995I specially concur to acknowledge that the gratuitous reference in Henderson to the essential-element test was not well thought out by me as the author of that opinion. 116 N.M. at 541, 865 P.2d at 1185. 1995I specially concur to acknowledge that the gratuitous reference in Henderson to the essential-element test was not well thought out by me as the author of that opinion. 116 N.M. at 541, 865 P.2d at 1185. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ardoingreen2 sentences1992See Fed.R.Evid. 404 advisory committee's note.) Although there is authority directly to the contrary in interpreting identical language in Federal Rule of Evidence 405, e.g., Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F.2d 1040, 1045 (10th Cir.1986), the Baca court relied on a pre-rule opinion, State v. Ardoin, 28 N.M. 641 , 216 P. 1048 (1923), as authority for admitting evidence of specific acts of violence, subject only to the general requirements of Rule 11-403. 1992See Fed.R.Evid. 404 advisory committee's note.) Although there is authority directly to the contrary in interpreting identical language in Federal Rule of Evidence 405, e.g., Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F.2d 1040, 1045 (10th Cir.1986), the Baca court relied on a pre-rule opinion, State v. Ardoin, 28 N.M. 641 , 216 P. 1048 (1923), as authority for admitting evidence of specific acts of violence, subject only to the general requirements of Rule 11-403. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bazangreen2 sentences1992See SCRA 1986, 11-405(B); State v. Bazan, 90 N.M. 209, 214 , 561 P.2d 482, 487 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 254 , 561 P.2d 1347 (1977). 1992See SCRA 1986, 11-405(B); State v. Bazan, 90 N.M. 209, 214 , 561 P.2d 482, 487 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 254 , 561 P.2d 1347 (1977). | 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. Swick
green
2 sentences2026But standing alone, the fact that a victim has prior 19 criminal history does not establish any of these exceptions to general inadmissibility. 20 And although admissibility under Rule 11-404(B) can be established by evidence of 1 specific instances of a victim’s “prior violent conduct of which the defendant was 2 aware . . . to show the defendant’s fear of the victim,” such was not the case here. 3 See State v. Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 17 , 140 N.M. 182 , 141 P.3d 526 4 (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018 , 5 279 P.3d 747 , ¶ 31. 6 {19} When a def 2018See State v. Samora, 9 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 45 , 387 P.3d 230 (confirming that district court properly excluded 10 names of victim’s prior felonies while still allowing the defendant to refer to the 11 existence of those convictions); see also State v. Trejo, 1991-NMCA-143 , ¶ 14, 113 12 N.M. 342 , 825 P.2d 1252 (noting that the defendant could have mitigated unfair 13 prejudice caused by evidence of prior convictions by requesting that the jury not be 14 told the names of the crimes). 15 {16} Evidence of specific instances of a victim’s prior violent conduct may be 16 admissible to show the defen | 2 | 2018–2026 |
State v. Armendariz
green
2 sentences2026But standing alone, the fact that a victim has prior 19 criminal history does not establish any of these exceptions to general inadmissibility. 20 And although admissibility under Rule 11-404(B) can be established by evidence of 1 specific instances of a victim’s “prior violent conduct of which the defendant was 2 aware . . . to show the defendant’s fear of the victim,” such was not the case here. 3 See State v. Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 17 , 140 N.M. 182 , 141 P.3d 526 4 (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018 , 5 279 P.3d 747 , ¶ 31. 6 {19} When a def 2026But standing alone, the fact that a victim has prior 19 criminal history does not establish any of these exceptions to general inadmissibility. 20 And although admissibility under Rule 11-404(B) can be established by evidence of 1 specific instances of a victim’s “prior violent conduct of which the defendant was 2 aware . . . to show the defendant’s fear of the victim,” such was not the case here. 3 See State v. Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 17 , 140 N.M. 182 , 141 P.3d 526 4 (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018 , 5 279 P.3d 747 , ¶ 31. 6 {19} When a def | 2 | 2018–2026 |
American Bank of Commerce v. Covolo
green
2 sentences2010We 8 relied on American Bank of Commerce v. Covolo, 88 N.M. 405, 407 , 540 P.2d 1294 , 9 1296 (1975), for the proposition that a banking relationship does not give rise to a 10 fiduciary duty between the creditor and debtor. 2010We 8 relied on American Bank of Commerce v. Covolo, 88 N.M. 405, 407 , 540 P.2d 1294 , 9 1296 (1975), for the proposition that a banking relationship does not give rise to a 10 fiduciary duty between the creditor and debtor. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Armijo
green
2 sentences2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 20 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 (“The only way to correctly instruct the jury in this case is to comply with the applicable Use Note and include as an essential element the requirement that Defendant did not act in self-defense.”); State v. Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, ¶10 , 130 N.M. 670 , 29 P.3d 1071 (holding that the failure to include a reference to self-defense in the elements instruction, as well as the failure to include the appropriate burden of proof in the self-defense instruction, constituted fundamental error); Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 12 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 20 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 (“The only way to correctly instruct the jury in this case is to comply with the applicable Use Note and include as an essential element the requirement that Defendant did not act in self-defense.”); State v. Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, ¶10 , 130 N.M. 670 , 29 P.3d 1071 (holding that the failure to include a reference to self-defense in the elements instruction, as well as the failure to include the appropriate burden of proof in the self-defense instruction, constituted fundamental error); Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 12 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Foxen
green
2 sentences2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 20 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 (“The only way to correctly instruct the jury in this case is to comply with the applicable Use Note and include as an essential element the requirement that Defendant did not act in self-defense.”); State v. Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, ¶10 , 130 N.M. 670 , 29 P.3d 1071 (holding that the failure to include a reference to self-defense in the elements instruction, as well as the failure to include the appropriate burden of proof in the self-defense instruction, constituted fundamental error); Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 12 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 20 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 (“The only way to correctly instruct the jury in this case is to comply with the applicable Use Note and include as an essential element the requirement that Defendant did not act in self-defense.”); State v. Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, ¶10 , 130 N.M. 670 , 29 P.3d 1071 (holding that the failure to include a reference to self-defense in the elements instruction, as well as the failure to include the appropriate burden of proof in the self-defense instruction, constituted fundamental error); Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 12 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Henderson
red
2 sentences1995I specially concur to acknowledge that the gratuitous reference in Henderson to the essential-element test was not well thought out by me as the author of that opinion. 116 N.M. at 541 , 865 P.2d at 1185 . 1995I specially concur to acknowledge that the gratuitous reference in Henderson to the essential-element test was not well thought out by me as the author of that opinion. 116 N.M. at 541 , 865 P.2d at 1185 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Baca
green
2 sentences1992In State v. Baca, 114 N.M. 668 , 845 P.2d 762 (1992), our Supreme Court wrote, "In cases where the pertinent character trait of the victim goes toward proving an essential element of the defense, proof may be made of specific instances of the victim's conduct. 1992In State v. Baca, 114 N.M. 668 , 845 P.2d 762 (1992), our Supreme Court wrote, "In cases where the pertinent character trait of the victim goes toward proving an essential element of the defense, proof may be made of specific instances of the victim's conduct. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Vitro Corp. of America v. Texas Vitrified Supply Co.
green
2 sentences1991In Vitro, however, we explained that “ ‘if an express warranty has been given in express terms as a part of the contract of sale, no proof of reliance thereon would have been necessary.’ ” Vitro, 71 N.M. at 105 , 376 P.2d at 48 (quoting 1 S. Williston, Williston on Sales § 206, at 534-35 (Rev. ed. 1948)). 1991In Vitro, however, we explained that “ ‘if an express warranty has been given in express terms as a part of the contract of sale, no proof of reliance thereon would have been necessary.’ ” Vitro, 71 N.M. at 105 , 376 P.2d at 48 (quoting 1 S. Williston, Williston on Sales § 206, at 534-35 (Rev. ed. 1948)). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
McMullen v. Ursuline Order of Sisters
green
2 sentences1967The position of plaintiff is that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of instructions on contributory negligence, “ * * * by reason of the law in New Mexico enunciated in McMullen v. Ursuline Order of Sisters, 56 N.M. 570 , 246 P.2d 1052 , and Clark v. Cassetty, 71 N.M. 89 , 376 P.2d 37 .” * * * * * * She then states that this court in both of these cases, “ * * * plainly stated that an essential element of the doctrine of contributory negligence is the voluntary exposure of the party involved to a known danger.” The language upon which she relies first appeared in the 1967The position of plaintiff is that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of instructions on contributory negligence, “ * * * by reason of the law in New Mexico enunciated in McMullen v. Ursuline Order of Sisters, 56 N.M. 570 , 246 P.2d 1052 , and Clark v. Cassetty, 71 N.M. 89 , 376 P.2d 37 .” * * * * * * She then states that this court in both of these cases, “ * * * plainly stated that an essential element of the doctrine of contributory negligence is the voluntary exposure of the party involved to a known danger.” The language upon which she relies first appeared in the | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Clark v. Cassetty
green
2 sentences1967The position of plaintiff is that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of instructions on contributory negligence, “ * * * by reason of the law in New Mexico enunciated in McMullen v. Ursuline Order of Sisters, 56 N.M. 570 , 246 P.2d 1052 , and Clark v. Cassetty, 71 N.M. 89 , 376 P.2d 37 .” * * * * * * She then states that this court in both of these cases, “ * * * plainly stated that an essential element of the doctrine of contributory negligence is the voluntary exposure of the party involved to a known danger.” The language upon which she relies first appeared in the 1967The position of plaintiff is that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of instructions on contributory negligence, “ * * * by reason of the law in New Mexico enunciated in McMullen v. Ursuline Order of Sisters, 56 N.M. 570 , 246 P.2d 1052 , and Clark v. Cassetty, 71 N.M. 89 , 376 P.2d 37 .” * * * * * * She then states that this court in both of these cases, “ * * * plainly stated that an essential element of the doctrine of contributory negligence is the voluntary exposure of the party involved to a known danger.” The language upon which she relies first appeared in the | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.