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.
16 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2025 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal MacHine & Fabricating, Inc.green2 sentences2024See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 ; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10; see also Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28 , 329 P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that is not adequately developed.”). {11} Defendant lastly reasserts her claim that the applicable statute of limitations expired in 2016, after the case had been instituted, but prior to Plaintiff’s filing of an affidavit of possession regarding the note. [AMIO 17] This argument is unavailing. [CN 9] See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-118 (1992) (stating that the operative date for purposes of the statute of limitations is the dat 2024See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 ; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10; see also Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28 , 329 P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that is not adequately developed.”). {11} Defendant lastly reasserts her claim that the applicable statute of limitations expired in 2016, after the case had been instituted, but prior to Plaintiff’s filing of an affidavit of possession regarding the note. [AMIO 17] This argument is unavailing. [CN 9] See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-118 (1992) (stating that the operative date for purposes of the statute of limitations is the dat | 11 | 11 |
State v. Aragongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating we presume the district court was correct and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error). 2024See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating we presume the district court was correct and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error). | 5 | 7 |
Allen v. Amoco Production Co.green2 sentences2010Co., 114 N.M. 18, 22 , 833 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Ct. App. 1992) 5 (stating that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error). 2010Co., 114 N.M. 18, 22 , 833 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Ct. App. 1992) 5 (stating that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error). | 2 | 2 |
Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2025See Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 (“[W]e reiterate that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.”); State v. Clifford, 1994-NMSC-048 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 508 , 873 P.2d 254 (“We remind counsel that we are not required to do their research.”). 2025See Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 (“[W]e reiterate that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.”); State v. Clifford, 1994-NMSC-048 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 508 , 873 P.2d 254 (“We remind counsel that we are not required to do their research.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hennessy v. Duryeagreen2 sentences2024See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 ; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10; see also Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28 , 329 P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that is not adequately developed.”). {11} Defendant lastly reasserts her claim that the applicable statute of limitations expired in 2016, after the case had been instituted, but prior to Plaintiff’s filing of an affidavit of possession regarding the note. [AMIO 17] This argument is unavailing. [CN 9] See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-118 (1992) (stating that the operative date for purposes of the statute of limitations is the dat 2024See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 ; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10; see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). | 1 | 1 |
Corona v. Coronagreen1 sentence2024See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 ; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10; see also Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28 , 329 P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that is not adequately developed.”). {11} Defendant lastly reasserts her claim that the applicable statute of limitations expired in 2016, after the case had been instituted, but prior to Plaintiff’s filing of an affidavit of possession regarding the note. [AMIO 17] This argument is unavailing. [CN 9] See NMSA 1978, § 55-3-118 (1992) (stating that the operative date for purposes of the statute of limitations is the dat | 1 | 1 |
Muse v. Musegreen1 sentence2023See Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 ; Elane Photography, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70 . {19} This Court operates pursuant to a presumption of correctness in favor of the district court’s rulings, and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. City of Santa Fegreen1 sentence2022See Smith, 2007-NMSC-055, ¶ 23 . | 1 | 1 |
Wilburn v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2009Co., 114 N.M. 18, 22 , 833 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Ct.App.1992) (stating that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error); see also Wilburn v. Stewart, 110 N.M. 268, 272 , 794 P.2d 1197, 1201 (1990) (“Issues raised in appellate briefs that are unsupported by cited authority will not be reviewed ... on appeal.”). 2009Co., 114 N.M. 18, 22 , 833 P.2d 1199, 1203 (Ct.App.1992) (stating that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error); see also Wilburn v. Stewart, 110 N.M. 268, 272 , 794 P.2d 1197, 1201 (1990) (“Issues raised in appellate briefs that are unsupported by cited authority will not be reviewed ... on appeal.”). | 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. Clifford
green
2 sentences2025See Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 (“[W]e reiterate that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.”); State v. Clifford, 1994-NMSC-048 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 508 , 873 P.2d 254 (“We remind counsel that we are not required to do their research.”). 2025See Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 (“[W]e reiterate that it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.”); State v. Clifford, 1994-NMSC-048 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 508 , 873 P.2d 254 (“We remind counsel that we are not required to do their research.”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock
green
1 sentence2023See Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 ; Elane Photography, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70 . {19} This Court operates pursuant to a presumption of correctness in favor of the district court’s rulings, and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Estate of Heeter
green
2 sentences2020In re Estate of Heeter, 1992-NMCA-032 , ¶ 15, 113 N.M. 691 , 831 P.2d 990 . {4} Instead, this Court operates pursuant to a presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court’s rulings, see State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error), and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal. 2020In re Estate of Heeter, 1992-NMCA-032 , ¶ 15, 113 N.M. 691 , 831 P.2d 990 . {4} Instead, this Court operates pursuant to a presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court’s rulings, see State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error), and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.