15 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, however, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); see also State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown in the record). 2025See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that although a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); see also State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (“When an ineffective assistance claim is first raised on direct appeal, we evaluate the facts that are part of the record. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Roybalgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, however, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); see also State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown in the record). 2025See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, however, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); see also State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown in the record). | 3 | 4 |
Muse v. Musegreen2 sentences2014See Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation 10 1 Comm’n, 1992-NMSC-044 , ¶ 11, 114 N.M. 103 , 835 P.2d 819 (holding that where a 2 party fails to cite any portion of the record to support its factual allegations, the Court 3 need not consider its argument on appeal); see also Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003 , 4 ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, 5 arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). 6 CONCLUSION 7 {22} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 8 {23} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 __________________ 2014See Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation 10 1 Comm’n, 1992-NMSC-044 , ¶ 11, 114 N.M. 103 , 835 P.2d 819 (holding that where a 2 party fails to cite any portion of the record to support its factual allegations, the Court 3 need not consider its argument on appeal); see also Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003 , 4 ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, 5 arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). 6 CONCLUSION 7 {22} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 8 {23} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 __________________ | 2 | 2 |
Wing Pawn Shop v. Taxation & Revenue Departmentgreen2 sentences2014This Court can only set aside a hearing officer’s decision and order on appeal if we conclude that it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion; (2) not supported by substantial evidence in the record; or (3) otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Section 7-1-25(C); see also Wing Pawn Shop v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1991-NMCA-024 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 735 , 809 P.2d 649 (“On appeal from an agency determination, we determine whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the agency’s decision, the findings have substantial support in the record as a whole.”). {20} We f 2014This Court can only set aside a hearing officer’s decision and order on appeal if we conclude that it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion; (2) not supported by substantial evidence in the record; or (3) otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Section 7-1-25(C); see also Wing Pawn Shop v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 1991-NMCA-024 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 735 , 809 P.2d 649 (“On appeal from an agency determination, we determine whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the agency’s decision, the findings have substantial support in the record as a whole.”). {20} We f | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Gallegos, 2009-NMSC-017, ¶ 31 , 146 N.M. 88 , 206 P.3d 993 (explaining that it is improper for a defendant to ask the court on appeal for a blanket review of every element for every offense by failing to identify the elements or offense being challenged and by not pointing to evidence in the record to support the challenge). 2026See State v. Gallegos, 2009-NMSC-017, ¶ 31 , 146 N.M. 88 , 206 P.3d 993 (explaining that it is improper for a defendant to ask the court on appeal for a blanket review of every element for every offense by failing to identify the elements or offense being challenged and by not pointing to evidence in the record to support the challenge). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Raelgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 . {6} Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ counsel had a conflict of interest and “should not have taken on this case.” [MIO 3] Defendant, however, has not pointed to facts in the record to support this claim, identified anything to indicate he preserved this argument by presenting it to the district court, or cited to any legal authority to support his assertion. 2025See State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 . {6} Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ counsel had a conflict of interest and “should not have taken on this case.” [MIO 3] Defendant, however, has not pointed to facts in the record to support this claim, identified anything to indicate he preserved this argument by presenting it to the district court, or cited to any legal authority to support his assertion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castenedagreen2 sentences2018See State v. Casteneda, 3 1982-NMCA-046 , ¶ 12, 97 N.M. 670 , 642 P.2d 1129 (finding no error where “there 4 was no request that the jury be admonished to disregard the inquiry” objected to by 5 the defendant). 6 {5} Last, we are not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that because there was 7 evidence he may not have been the only person with access to the car and drugs found 8 therein, and that police mishandled the evidence, the jury may have been misled as to 9 Defendant’s accessibility to the drugs and potentially found him guilty solely because 10 of the bench warrant. [MIO 2] The assertio 2018See State v. Casteneda, 3 1982-NMCA-046 , ¶ 12, 97 N.M. 670 , 642 P.2d 1129 (finding no error where “there 4 was no request that the jury be admonished to disregard the inquiry” objected to by 5 the defendant). 6 {5} Last, we are not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that because there was 7 evidence he may not have been the only person with access to the car and drugs found 8 therein, and that police mishandled the evidence, the jury may have been misled as to 9 Defendant’s accessibility to the drugs and potentially found him guilty solely because 10 of the bench warrant. [MIO 2] The assertio | 1 | 1 |
Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation Commissiongreen2 sentences2014See Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation 10 1 Comm’n, 1992-NMSC-044 , ¶ 11, 114 N.M. 103 , 835 P.2d 819 (holding that where a 2 party fails to cite any portion of the record to support its factual allegations, the Court 3 need not consider its argument on appeal); see also Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003 , 4 ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, 5 arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). 6 CONCLUSION 7 {22} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 8 {23} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 __________________ 2014See Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation 10 1 Comm’n, 1992-NMSC-044 , ¶ 11, 114 N.M. 103 , 835 P.2d 819 (holding that where a 2 party fails to cite any portion of the record to support its factual allegations, the Court 3 need not consider its argument on appeal); see also Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003 , 4 ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, 5 arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). 6 CONCLUSION 7 {22} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 8 {23} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 __________________ | 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. Cobbs
green
2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that although a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining that a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown on the record). {5} In the current case, the State has not stipulated that Defendant is not a dangerous or violent felon; rather, the State disputes the need for a victim of a viole 2023See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that although a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining that a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown on the record). {5} In the current case, the State has not stipulated that Defendant is not a dangerous or violent felon; rather, the State disputes the need for a victim of a viole | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Vandenberg
green
2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that although a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining that a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown on the record). {5} In the current case, the State has not stipulated that Defendant is not a dangerous or violent felon; rather, the State disputes the need for a victim of a viole 2023See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that although a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining that a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown on the record). {5} In the current case, the State has not stipulated that Defendant is not a dangerous or violent felon; rather, the State disputes the need for a victim of a viole | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Barragan
green
2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that although a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining that a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown on the record). {5} In the current case, the State has not stipulated that Defendant is not a dangerous or violent felon; rather, the State disputes the need for a victim of a viole 2023See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056, ¶ 13 , 399 P.3d 954 (observing that although a double jeopardy challenge need not be preserved and may be raised at any time, there must be a factual basis in the record to support the claim); State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (explaining that a claim that counsel was ineffective may be raised for the first time on appeal, but it must be shown on the record). {5} In the current case, the State has not stipulated that Defendant is not a dangerous or violent felon; rather, the State disputes the need for a victim of a viole | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2018Cf. State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-127, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 364 , 223 P.3d 14 361 (indicating that the only evidence that the defendant was the registered owner of 15 the vehicle and the only occupant, suggests exclusivity). 2018Cf. State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-127, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 364 , 223 P.3d 14 361 (indicating that the only evidence that the defendant was the registered owner of 15 the vehicle and the only occupant, suggests exclusivity). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Baca v. Velez
green
1 sentence2013As we observed earlier, 10 the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the decision of the hearing 11 officer, and “[i]f more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence[,] then the 12 inference drawn by the hearing officer is conclusive.” See Kewanee Indus., 114 N.M. 13 at 787 , 845 P.2d at 1241 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kewanee Industries, Inc. v. Reese
green
1 sentence2013As we observed earlier, 10 the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the decision of the hearing 11 officer, and “[i]f more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence[,] then the 12 inference drawn by the hearing officer is conclusive.” See Kewanee Indus., 114 N.M. 13 at 787 , 845 P.2d at 1241 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2011“Matters 23 not of record present no issue for review.” State v. Hunter, 2001-NMCA-078, ¶ 18 , 24 131 N.M. 76 , 33 P.3d 296 . 4 1 evidence, and recognizing that the district court is in the best position to resolve 2 conflicts in the evidence and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 2011“Matters 23 not of record present no issue for review.” State v. Hunter, 2001-NMCA-078, ¶ 18 , 24 131 N.M. 76 , 33 P.3d 296 . 4 1 evidence, and recognizing that the district court is in the best position to resolve 2 conflicts in the evidence and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Rojo
green
2 sentences2009This Court “will not search the record to 17 see if an issue was preserved where the defendant [does] not provide appropriate 18 transcript references.” State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 44 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 19 829. 2009This Court “will not search the record to 17 see if an issue was preserved where the defendant [does] not provide appropriate 18 transcript references.” State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 44 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 19 829. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.