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 2 courts 1977–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Estate of Newallagreen2 sentences1994See In re Estate of Newalla, 114 N.M. 290, 296 , 837 P.2d 1373, 1379 (Ct.App.1992). 1994See In re Estate of Newalla, 114 N.M. 290, 296 , 837 P.2d 1373, 1379 (Ct.App.1992). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2023See Martinez, 2018-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 15-25 (reviewing statutory and precedential history specific to grand juries). 2023See Martinez, 2018-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 15-25 (reviewing statutory and precedential history specific to grand juries). | 1 | 1 |
Kersey v. Hatchgreen2 sentences2022See Kersey, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 19 (applying changes in the law to cases pending on direct appeal only if “the failure to apply the new rule constitutes fundamental error”). 2022See Kersey, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 19 (applying changes in the law to cases pending on direct appeal only if “the failure to apply the new rule constitutes fundamental error”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nolangreen2 sentences2022See State v. Nolan, 1979-NMCA-116 , ¶ 17, 93 N.M. 472 , 601 P.2d 442 (holding that an identification procedure using only one photograph was impremissibly suggestive). 2022See State v. Nolan, 1979-NMCA-116 , ¶ 17, 93 N.M. 472 , 601 P.2d 442 (holding that an identification procedure using only one photograph was impremissibly suggestive). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Samoragreen2 sentences2022See State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶¶ 13, 16 , 307 P.3d 328 (concluding first that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated and second reviewing for reversible, fundamental error). {14} Defendant refers to the Martinez Court’s review of scientific research on photo identifications and contends that the eyewitness identification procedures used were suggestive, because (1) eyewitness Cyriana Enjady received “post-event information” from a police officer who showed her a single photo on the night of the incident; (2) all three eyewitnesses identified Defendant multiple times and saw 2022See State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶¶ 13, 16 , 307 P.3d 328 (concluding first that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated and second reviewing for reversible, fundamental error). {14} Defendant refers to the Martinez Court’s review of scientific research on photo identifications and contends that the eyewitness identification procedures used were suggestive, because (1) eyewitness Cyriana Enjady received “post-event information” from a police officer who showed her a single photo on the night of the incident; (2) all three eyewitnesses identified Defendant multiple times and saw | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2014We confronted precisely this scenario in Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 .. . (1963), holding that once jeopardy has attached, the absence of witnesses generally does not constitute the kind of “‘extraordinary and striking circumstanc[e]’” in which a trial court may exercise “discretion to discharge the jury before it has reached a verdict.” Id., at 736 . . . ; see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 508 , n.24 . . . (1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109 , ¶ 17, 122 N.M. 476 , 927 P.2d 31 ("A jury, when judging a witness's credibility, should be able to take into consideration whether a witness hoped to curry favor by cooperating with the prosecution." (emphasis omitted)). 2012See State v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109 , ¶ 17, 122 N.M. 476 , 927 P.2d 31 ("A jury, when judging a witness's credibility, should be able to take into consideration whether a witness hoped to curry favor by cooperating with the prosecution." (emphasis omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Campos v. Bravogreen1 sentence2007See Campos v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 18 (discussing fundamental error). | 1 | 1 |
Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co.green2 sentences2002See Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 672 , 857 P.2d 776, 783 (1993) (holding that an offer or promise must be sufficiently explicit to give rise to reasonable expectations, in order to create an implied employment contract). 2002See Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 672 , 857 P.2d 776, 783 (1993) (holding that an offer or promise must be sufficiently explicit to give rise to reasonable expectations, in order to create an implied employment contract). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Stern's Willgreen2 sentences2002See In re Stern’s Will, 62 N.M. 411, 413-14 , 311 P.2d 385, 387 (1957) (holding that rights of heirs who will succeed to an interest in a decedent’s estate where the decedent dies intestate vest at the moment of the decedent’s death). 2002See In re Stern’s Will, 62 N.M. 411, 413-14 , 311 P.2d 385, 387 (1957) (holding that rights of heirs who will succeed to an interest in a decedent’s estate where the decedent dies intestate vest at the moment of the decedent’s death). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Southwest Landfills, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Martinez, 115 N.M. at 184-85 , 848 P.2d at 1111-12 . 1993See Martinez, 115 N.M. at 184-85 , 848 P.2d at 1111-12 . | 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. Warren
green
2 sentences2006To randomly apply the exception would effectively emasculate the felony-misdemeanor distinction.” Id. at 478 , 709 P.2d at 200 . {14} Tested by the foregoing standards, Officer Martinez’s stop of Defendant’s vehicle when he never saw a seatbelt violation was not reasonable. 2006To randomly apply the exception would effectively emasculate the felony-misdemeanor distinction.” Id. at 478 , 709 P.2d at 200 . {14} Tested by the foregoing standards, Officer Martinez’s stop of Defendant’s vehicle when he never saw a seatbelt violation was not reasonable. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
In Re One 1967 Peterbilt Tractor, Etc.
green
2 sentences1995The motion is entitled “Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment ... and Motion for Return of Property.” The motion requested that “the forfeited property be returned to Defendant pursuant to Judge Dal Santo’s order.” Furthermore, his memorandum in support of the motion relies on In re One 1967 Peterbilt Tractor, 84 N.M. 652 , 506 P.2d 1199 (1973), and asserts that Judge Dal Santo’s order operates as collateral estoppel in the forfeiture proceeding. 1995The motion is entitled “Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment ... and Motion for Return of Property.” The motion requested that “the forfeited property be returned to Defendant pursuant to Judge Dal Santo’s order.” Furthermore, his memorandum in support of the motion relies on In re One 1967 Peterbilt Tractor, 84 N.M. 652 , 506 P.2d 1199 (1973), and asserts that Judge Dal Santo’s order operates as collateral estoppel in the forfeiture proceeding. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2025First, the defendant has the burden “to establish prima facie 7 that some aspect of the identification procedure employed by the police was 8 suggestive.” 2021-NMSC-002, ¶ 80 . 2025First, the defendant has the burden “to establish prima facie 7 that some aspect of the identification procedure employed by the police was 8 suggestive.” 2021-NMSC-002, ¶ 80 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Downum v. United States
green
2 sentences2014We confronted precisely this scenario in Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 .. . (1963), holding that once jeopardy has attached, the absence of witnesses generally does not constitute the kind of “‘extraordinary and striking circumstanc[e]’” in which a trial court may exercise “discretion to discharge the jury before it has reached a verdict.” Id., at 736 . . . ; see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 508 , n.24 . . . (1978). 2014We confronted precisely this scenario in Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 .. . (1963), holding that once jeopardy has attached, the absence of witnesses generally does not constitute the kind of “‘extraordinary and striking circumstanc[e]’” in which a trial court may exercise “discretion to discharge the jury before it has reached a verdict.” Id., at 736 . . . ; see also Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 508 , n.24 . . . (1978). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Institute for Essential Housing, Inc. v. Keith
green
2 sentences1977Institute for Essential Housing, Inc. v. Keith, 76 N.M. 492 , 416 P.2d 157 (1966). 1977Institute for Essential Housing, Inc. v. Keith, 76 N.M. 492 , 416 P.2d 157 (1966). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.