16 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. Norwest Corp.green2 sentences2018At this stage, "it is essential for the court to understand the substantive law, proof elements of, and defenses to the asserted cause of action to properly assess whether the certification criteria are met." Id. ¶ 31 ; see also Romero v. Philip Morris Inc. , 2005-NMCA-035 , ¶ 38, 137 N.M. 229 , 109 P.3d 768 ("The district court's rigorous analysis often involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ). 2008The court “must engage in a rigorous analysis of whether the Rule’s requirements have actually been met.” Brooks v. Norwest Corp., 2004-NMCA-134, ¶ 9 , 136 N.M. 599 , 103 P.3d 39 . | 3 | 6 |
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsorgreen2 sentences2007See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 (stating that specifications of Rule 23, which are “designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions},] demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context”); In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 458 (“Settlements that take place prior to formal class certification require a higher standard of fairness.”); In re GM Trucks, 55 F.3d at 800 (concluding that the lower court’s failure to comply with the Rule 23 certification requirements when certifying a class for settlement “is a plain error of law” and thus 2007See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 (stating that specifications of Rule 23, which are “designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions},] demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context”); In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 458 (“Settlements that take place prior to formal class certification require a higher standard of fairness.”); In re GM Trucks, 55 F.3d at 800 (concluding that the lower court’s failure to comply with the Rule 23 certification requirements when certifying a class for settlement “is a plain error of law” and thus | 3 | 5 |
Ferrell v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2012In certifying the class, the district court “must engage in a rigorous analysis of whether the Rule’s requirements have actually been met.” Ferrell, 2008-NMSC-042, ¶ 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {98} As we stated above, the court certified the class in this case before the MCOs were added as Defendants. 2011In certifying the class, the district court "must engage in a rigorous analysis of whether the Rule's requirements have actually been met." Ferrell, 2008-NMSC-042, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 405 , 188 P.3d 1156 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {98} As we stated above, the court certified the class in this case before the MCOs were added as Defendants. | 2 | 3 |
Romero v. Philip Morris Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2018At this stage, "it is essential for the court to understand the substantive law, proof elements of, and defenses to the asserted cause of action to properly assess whether the certification criteria are met." Id. ¶ 31 ; see also Romero v. Philip Morris Inc. , 2005-NMCA-035 , ¶ 38, 137 N.M. 229 , 109 P.3d 768 ("The district court's rigorous analysis often involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ). 2018At this stage, "it is essential for the court to understand the substantive law, proof elements of, and defenses to the asserted cause of action to properly assess whether the certification criteria are met." Id. ¶ 31 ; see also Romero v. Philip Morris Inc. , 2005-NMCA-035 , ¶ 38, 137 N.M. 229 , 109 P.3d 768 ("The district court's rigorous analysis often involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ). | 2 | 2 |
Armijo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2009Rather, the court should “engage in a rigorous analysis to determine whether Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Rule 1-023.” Id. 2009This is because the district court “must engage in a rigorous analysis of whether the Rule’s requirements have actually been met[,]” Ferrell, 2008-NMSC-042, ¶ 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and may “probe behind the pleadings [to] forecast what kind of evidence may be required or allowed at trial.” Armijo, 2007-NMCA-120, ¶ 22 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc.green2 sentences2012The newly added defendant appealed, and the Sixth Circuit held that “[t]he district [court] failed in its duty to conduct a rigorous analysis . . . and clearly abused its discretion.” Id. at 1086 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011The newly added defendant appealed, and the Sixth Circuit held that "[t]he district [court] failed in its duty to conduct a rigorous analysis ... and clearly abused its discretion." Id. at 1086 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
cluster 768824green2 sentences2007See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 (stating that specifications of Rule 23, which are "designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions[,] demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context"); In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 458 ("Settlements that take place prior to formal class certification require a higher standard of fairness."); In re GM Trucks, 55 *778 F.3d at 800 (concluding that the lower court's failure to comply with the Rule 23 certification requirements when certifying a class for settlement "is a plain error of law" and 2007See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 (stating that specifications of Rule 23, which are “designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions},] demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context”); In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 458 (“Settlements that take place prior to formal class certification require a higher standard of fairness.”); In re GM Trucks, 55 F.3d at 800 (concluding that the lower court’s failure to comply with the Rule 23 certification requirements when certifying a class for settlement “is a plain error of law” and thus | 2 | 2 |
cluster 696566green1 sentence2007See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 (stating that specifications of Rule 23, which are “designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions},] demand undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context”); In re Mego, 213 F.3d at 458 (“Settlements that take place prior to formal class certification require a higher standard of fairness.”); In re GM Trucks, 55 F.3d at 800 (concluding that the lower court’s failure to comply with the Rule 23 certification requirements when certifying a class for settlement “is a plain error of law” and thus | 1 | 1 |
O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc.green1 sentence2004Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 613-14 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 ; O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 318 (C.D.Cal.1998). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 776519green1 sentence2004Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits); In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir.2001) (noting that despite the rigorous analysis requirement, “a motion for class certification is not an occasion for examination of the merits”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {10} Plaintiffs bear the burden to show that all four prerequisites of Rule 1-023(A) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 1-023(B) are met. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Devon Energy Corp.
green
1 sentence2021“This is because the district court must engage in a rigorous analysis of whether [Rule 1-023’s] requirements have actually been met and may probe behind the pleadings to forecast what kind of evidence may be required or allowed at trial.” Id. (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bartlett v. Mirabal
green
2 sentences2008Plaintiffs, citing Bartlett v. Mirabal, 2000-NMCA-036 , 128 N.M. 830 , 999 P.2d 1062 , argue that federal courts apply a less rigorous standard in granting summary judgment than do New Mexico courts and argue that the district court erred by following the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which necessarily incorporated a less rigorous federal summary judgment standard. {14} “Prior to 1986, the [United States] Supreme Court sent mixed messages about the availability of the [summary judgment] motion. 2008Plaintiffs, citing Bartlett v. Mirabal, 2000-NMCA-036 , 128 N.M. 830 , 999 P.2d 1062 , argue that federal courts apply a less rigorous standard in granting summary judgment than do New Mexico courts and argue that the district court erred by following the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which necessarily incorporated a less rigorous federal summary judgment standard. {14} “Prior to 1986, the [United States] Supreme Court sent mixed messages about the availability of the [summary judgment] motion. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2007He suggested that “to obtain relief on a claim of actual innocence, the petitioner must show that he probably is innocent.” Id. at 442 , 113 S.Ct. 853 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). {26} The variety of standards advanced by the various opinions in Herrera, is echoed by the states recognizing freestanding claims of actual innocence. 2007He suggested that "to obtain relief on a claim of actual innocence, the petitioner must show that he probably is innocent." Id. at 442 , 113 S.Ct. 853 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). {26} The variety of standards advanced by the various opinions in Herrera , is echoed by the states recognizing freestanding claims of actual innocence. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Herrera v. Collins
green
2 sentences2007He suggested that “to obtain relief on a claim of actual innocence, the petitioner must show that he probably is innocent.” Id. at 442 , 113 S.Ct. 853 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). {26} The variety of standards advanced by the various opinions in Herrera, is echoed by the states recognizing freestanding claims of actual innocence. 2007He suggested that "to obtain relief on a claim of actual innocence, the petitioner must show that he probably is innocent." Id. at 442 , 113 S.Ct. 853 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). {26} The variety of standards advanced by the various opinions in Herrera , is echoed by the states recognizing freestanding claims of actual innocence. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
red
2 sentences2005The district court’s rigorous analysis often “involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiffs cause of action.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 , 98 S.Ct. 2454 , 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). 2005The district court’s rigorous analysis often “involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiffs cause of action.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 , 98 S.Ct. 2454 , 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
green
2 sentences2004Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits); In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir.2001) (noting that despite the rigorous analysis requirement, “a motion for class certification is not an occasion for examination of the merits”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {10} Plaintiffs bear the burden to show that all four prerequisites of Rule 1-023(A) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 1-023(B) are met. 2004Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits); In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir.2001) (noting that despite the rigorous analysis requirement, “a motion for class certification is not an occasion for examination of the merits”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {10} Plaintiffs bear the burden to show that all four prerequisites of Rule 1-023(A) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 1-023(B) are met. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Conley v. Gibson
red
2 sentences1978The United States Supreme Court in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) set out a rigorous test for determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: ... 1978The United States Supreme Court in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) set out a rigorous test for determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: ... | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.