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.
15 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Delfino v. Griffogreen2 sentences2012See Delfino v. Griffo, 2011-NMSC-015, ¶ 9 , 150 N.M. 97 , 257 P.3d 917 . 2012See Delfino v. Griffo, 2011-NMSC-015, ¶ 9 , 150 N.M. 97 , 257 P.3d 917 . | 2 | 2 |
Luevano v. Group Onegreen2 sentences1994Cf. Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 235 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1037 (1992) (decision as to whether judgment is final is based on practical, not technical interpretation, and may be considered final even though certain other action remains to be taken); Luevano v. Group One, 108 N.M. 774, 776 , 779 P.2d 552, 554 (Ct.App.1989) (order granting summary judgment, disposing of all claims, is a final order). 1994Cf. Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 235 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1037 (1992) (decision as to whether judgment is final is based on practical, not technical interpretation, and may be considered final even though certain other action remains to be taken); Luevano v. Group One, 108 N.M. 774, 776 , 779 P.2d 552, 554 (Ct.App.1989) (order granting summary judgment, disposing of all claims, is a final order). | 2 | 2 |
Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnisongreen2 sentences1994Cf. Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 235 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1037 (1992) (decision as to whether judgment is final is based on practical, not technical interpretation, and may be considered final even though certain other action remains to be taken); Luevano v. Group One, 108 N.M. 774, 776 , 779 P.2d 552, 554 (Ct.App.1989) (order granting summary judgment, disposing of all claims, is a final order). 1994Cf. Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 235 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1037 (1992) (decision as to whether judgment is final is based on practical, not technical interpretation, and may be considered final even though certain other action remains to be taken); Luevano v. Group One, 108 N.M. 774, 776 , 779 P.2d 552, 554 (Ct.App.1989) (order granting summary judgment, disposing of all claims, is a final order). | 2 | 2 |
AFSCME v. City of Albuquerquegreen1 sentence2026To the extent that Appellants “invoked the machinery of the judicial system,” see AFSCME Loc. 3022, 2013-NMCA-049, ¶ 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it was only regarding the issue of arbitration—specifically: filing a response in opposition to Appellees’ motion to strike, supplementing the response in opposition, and participating in the hearing on Appellees’ motion. | 1 | 1 |
Salazar v. Citadel Communications Corp.green2 sentences2019See Salazar v. Citadel Comm’ns Corp., 2004-NMSC-013, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 447 , 90 P.3d 466 (stating “a prerequisite to compelling arbitration is the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate”); see also Heye v. Am. 2019See Salazar v. Citadel Comm’ns Corp., 2004-NMSC-013, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 447 , 90 P.3d 466 (stating “a prerequisite to compelling arbitration is the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate”); see also Heye v. Am. | 1 | 1 |
Mayer v. Smithgreen1 sentence2017See Mayer v. Smith, 2015-NMCA-060, ¶¶ 7-9 , 350 12 P.3d 1191 (describing a motion to dismiss in a non-jury trial as a challenge to the 13 sufficiency of the evidence). 14 A. Prima Facie Tort 15 {57} As a threshold matter, we consider whether the district court erred in denying 16 Bozzone’s motion to dismiss Appellees’ claim of prima facie tort at the close of 17 Appellees’ case in chief. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2016See generally id. {26} Because Deputy Stevens was under no statutory obligation to detain or transport Lopez under Section 43-2-8(A), his decision to discontinue such transportation cannot constitute a deprivation of a statutory right imposed by Section 29-1-1. 2 Because Deputy Stevens’ conduct did not breach a statutory duty owed to Appellant, Appellees’ immunity from tort liability granted by Section 41-4-4(A) is not waived on this theory. | 1 | 1 |
Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.green2 sentences1999See Beavers, 120 N.M. at 347 , 901 P.2d at 765 . 1999See Beavers, 120 N.M. at 347 , 901 P.2d at 765 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
El Castillo Ret. Residences v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2019We also deny 12 Appellant’s motion to withdraw the appeal and proceed with summary affirmance of 13 the district court’s order. 14 {3} Appellant’s docketing statement challenged whether the exemption for property 15 interests provided for by NMSA 1978, Section 7-36-3(B) (2006), is limited to 16 property a governmental entity has an ownership interest in pursuant to Article VIII, 17 Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution. [DS 8] Appellant argued that interpreting 18 Section 7-36-3(B) as being limited by the Constitution renders the plain meaning of 19 that statute meaningless. [Id.] Relying o 2019We also deny 12 Appellant’s motion to withdraw the appeal and proceed with summary affirmance of 13 the district court’s order. 14 {3} Appellant’s docketing statement challenged whether the exemption for property 15 interests provided for by NMSA 1978, Section 7-36-3(B) (2006), is limited to 16 property a governmental entity has an ownership interest in pursuant to Article VIII, 17 Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution. [DS 8] Appellant argued that interpreting 18 Section 7-36-3(B) as being limited by the Constitution renders the plain meaning of 19 that statute meaningless. [Id.] Relying o | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Granado Ex Rel. Granado v. Granado
green
2 sentences1994Granado dealt with an order finding that the circumstances of that case were sufficient to give rise to the creation of an equitable trust, not an express trust. 107 N.M. at 459 , 760 P.2d at 151 . 1994Granado dealt with an order finding that the circumstances of that case were sufficient to give rise to the creation of an equitable trust, not an express trust. 107 N.M. at 459 , 760 P.2d at 151 . | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Sims v. Sims
green
2 sentences2025Appellant’s claims that “the [d]istrict [c]ourt considered itself bound by its own findings,” and that the “ruling demonstrates that the district court left no room for reconsideration on the matter” are simply incorrect and are contravened by our case law and the rules of procedure. [MIO 14] See generally Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 59, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (stating that decisions made by the court prior to final judgment may be revised at any time prior to final judgment); Rule 1-059 NMRA. {14} The only issue then is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting App 2025Appellant’s claims that “the [d]istrict [c]ourt considered itself bound by its own findings,” and that the “ruling demonstrates that the district court left no room for reconsideration on the matter” are simply incorrect and are contravened by our case law and the rules of procedure. [MIO 14] See generally Sims v. Sims, 1996-NMSC-078 , ¶ 59, 122 N.M. 618 , 930 P.2d 153 (stating that decisions made by the court prior to final judgment may be revised at any time prior to final judgment); Rule 1-059 NMRA. {14} The only issue then is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting App | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Ex Rel. King v. American Tobacco Co.
green
2 sentences2019King v. American Tobacco Co., 2008-NMCA-142 , 145 N.M. 134 , 194 P.3d 749 , as the law of the case. 2019King v. American Tobacco Co., 2008-NMCA-142 , 145 N.M. 134 , 194 P.3d 749 , as the law of the case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Padilla v. Wall Colmonoy Corp.
green
2 sentences2017“We review the denial of a motion to dismiss de novo 18 because such a motion tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations.” Padilla v. Wall 19 Colmonoy Corp., 2006-NMCA-137, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 630 , 145 P.3d 110 . 34 1 {58} Although Bozzone’s motion to dismiss focused generally on Appellees’ failure 2 to prove the elements of prima facie tort, at trial, counsel described prima facie tort 3 as a “catchall” claim. 2017“We review the denial of a motion to dismiss de novo 18 because such a motion tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations.” Padilla v. Wall 19 Colmonoy Corp., 2006-NMCA-137, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 630 , 145 P.3d 110 . 34 1 {58} Although Bozzone’s motion to dismiss focused generally on Appellees’ failure 2 to prove the elements of prima facie tort, at trial, counsel described prima facie tort 3 as a “catchall” claim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
THI of New Mexico at Hobbs Center, LLC v. Patton Ex Rel. Estate of Patton
green
1 sentence2017The 10 district court’s order rejected Appellants’ arguments that Appellees waived their 11 substantive unconscionability argument and that the reasoning and holding from THI 12 of New Mexico at Hobbs Center, LLC v. Patton, 741 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2014) 13 should apply over New Mexico precedent. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.