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.
13 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hartzell v. Schustergreen2 sentences2013Cf. In re Trusteeship under Agreement with Mayo, 105 N.W.2d 900, 905 (Minn. 1960) (authorizing a trustee to deviate from the express terms of a trust for the purpose of preserving the value of the trust when 11 changed conditions due to inflation impaired the dominant purpose of the trust). 2013Cf. In re Trusteeship under 11 Agreement with Mayo, 105 N.W.2d 900, 905 (Minn. 1960) (authorizing a trustee to deviate from the express terms of a trust for the purpose of preserving the value of the trust when changed conditions due to inflation impaired the dominant purpose of the trust). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rojogreen1 sentence2017See id. 18 {21} Finally, Defendant’s claim that the district court improperly granted summary 19 judgment before discovery was complete is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnisongreen1 sentence2014See generally Watson v. Blakely, 1987- 5 NMCA-147, ¶ 14, 106 N.M. 687 , 748 P.2d 984 (stating that “[a]n order disposing of 6 the issues contained in the complaint but not the counterclaim is not a final 7 judgment”), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992- 8 NMSC-005, ¶ 25, 113 N.M 231, 824 P.2d 1033 ; Tarin’s, Inc. v. Tinley, 2000-NMCA- 9 048, ¶ 2, 129 N.M. 185 , 3 P.3d 680 (holding that a judgment containing no mention 10 of a counterclaim was not a final, appealable order). 11 {3} Garcia acknowledges the counterclaims, but nonetheless urges this Court to 12 | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Blakelygreen2 sentences2014See generally Watson v. Blakely, 1987- 5 NMCA-147, ¶ 14, 106 N.M. 687 , 748 P.2d 984 (stating that “[a]n order disposing of 6 the issues contained in the complaint but not the counterclaim is not a final 7 judgment”), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992- 8 NMSC-005, ¶ 25, 113 N.M 231, 824 P.2d 1033 ; Tarin’s, Inc. v. Tinley, 2000-NMCA- 9 048, ¶ 2, 129 N.M. 185 , 3 P.3d 680 (holding that a judgment containing no mention 10 of a counterclaim was not a final, appealable order). 11 {3} Garcia acknowledges the counterclaims, but nonetheless urges this Court to 12 2014See generally Watson v. Blakely, 1987- 5 NMCA-147, ¶ 14, 106 N.M. 687 , 748 P.2d 984 (stating that “[a]n order disposing of 6 the issues contained in the complaint but not the counterclaim is not a final 7 judgment”), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992- 8 NMSC-005, ¶ 25, 113 N.M 231, 824 P.2d 1033 ; Tarin’s, Inc. v. Tinley, 2000-NMCA- 9 048, ¶ 2, 129 N.M. 185 , 3 P.3d 680 (holding that a judgment containing no mention 10 of a counterclaim was not a final, appealable order). 11 {3} Garcia acknowledges the counterclaims, but nonetheless urges this Court to 12 | 1 | 1 |
Schiller v. Southwest Air Rangers, Inc.green2 sentences2011Air Rangers, Inc., 87 N.M. 476, 478 , 535 P.2d 1327, 1329 (1975). {13} A variety of theories were advanced below regarding the Bank’s motion for summary judgment. 2011Air Rangers, Inc., 87 N.M. 476, 478 , 535 P.2d 1327, 1329 (1975). {13} A variety of theories were advanced below regarding the Bank’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Slide-A-Ride of Las Cruces, Inc. v. Citizens Bankgreen2 sentences2007Slide-A-Ride of Las Cruces, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Las Cruces, 105 N.M. 433, 436 , 733 P.2d 1316, 1319 (1987) (“[AJmendments to pleadings are favored, and should be allowed when justice so requires____[However], denial of a motion to amend will be reversed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)). {15} Bank contends that the standard of review is de novo because of the unusual procedural posture surrounding the motion to amend. 2007Slide-A-Ride of Las Cruces, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Las Cruces, 105 N.M. 433, 436 , 733 P.2d 1316, 1319 (1987) (“[AJmendments to pleadings are favored, and should be allowed when justice so requires____[However], denial of a motion to amend will be reversed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)). {15} Bank contends that the standard of review is de novo because of the unusual procedural posture surrounding the motion to amend. | 1 | 1 |
Oschwald v. Christiegreen2 sentences2005The movant need not demonstrate beyond all possibility that no genuine factual issue existed.”) (citation omitted); Oschwald v. Christie, 95 N.M. 251, 253 , 620 P.2d 1276, 1278 (1980) (discussing prima facie cases for summary judgment and concluding that the affidavit of the movant did make a prima facie case). {9} In response to Bank’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that the overdraft fees were unconscionable as a matter of fact, unreasonable, and grossly higher than Bank’s costs. 2005The movant need not demonstrate beyond all possibility that no genuine factual issue existed.”) (citation omitted); Oschwald v. Christie, 95 N.M. 251, 253 , 620 P.2d 1276, 1278 (1980) (discussing prima facie cases for summary judgment and concluding that the affidavit of the movant did make a prima facie case). {9} In response to Bank’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that the overdraft fees were unconscionable as a matter of fact, unreasonable, and grossly higher than Bank’s costs. | 1 | 1 |
Grus v. Pattongreen1 sentence2002Although the Bank has cited two cases directly on point, Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 955, 959 (W.D.Mich.1994), and Grus v. Patton, 790 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Mo.Ct.App.1990), we are not impressed by the reasoning of either case. | 1 | 1 |
Quintana v. Bacagreen2 sentences2002See Quintana v. Baca, 1999-NMCA-017, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 679 , 974 P.2d 173 (reviewing an issue that was arguably not preserved in the trial court when the general theory was discussed in the trial court, even though objection was not as specific as it could have been). {11} We do not agree with the Bank that a claim of revocation is governed by Section 55-2-725. 2002See Quintana v. Baca, 1999-NMCA-017, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 679 , 974 P.2d 173 (reviewing an issue that was arguably not preserved in the trial court when the general theory was discussed in the trial court, even though objection was not as specific as it could have been). {11} We do not agree with the Bank that a claim of revocation is governed by Section 55-2-725. | 1 | 1 |
Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc.green1 sentence2002Although the Bank has cited two cases directly on point, Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 955, 959 (W.D.Mich.1994), and Grus v. Patton, 790 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Mo.Ct.App.1990), we are not impressed by the reasoning of either case. | 1 | 1 |
Landrum v. Security Nat. Bank of Roswellgreen2 sentences1992See Landrum v. Security Nat’l Bank of Roswell, 104 N.M. 55 , 716 P.2d 246 (Ct.App.1985) (upon being notified of forged endorsement claims, bank could place a hold on depositor’s checking account in order to make reasonable inquiry into claims), cert. quashed, 103 N.M. 798 , 715 P.2d 71 (1986). 1992See Landrum v. Security Nat’l Bank of Roswell, 104 N.M. 55 , 716 P.2d 246 (Ct.App.1985) (upon being notified of forged endorsement claims, bank could place a hold on depositor’s checking account in order to make reasonable inquiry into claims), cert. quashed, 103 N.M. 798 , 715 P.2d 71 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Company, Inc.green2 sentences1979See Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Company, Inc., 86 N.M. 405 , supra, at 419, 524 P.2d 1021 . 1979See Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Company, Inc., 86 N.M. 405 , supra, at 419, 524 P.2d 1021 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bank of New York v. Romero
green
1 sentence2021Borrower moved to dismiss Bank’s complaint pursuant to Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA, arguing that Bank’s claim was time barred by the statute of limitations established in Section 55-3-118(a). 1Quantum obtained a default judgment in the 2009 foreclosure before entering into the Agreement but the district court later set aside the default judgment and the foreclosure case proceeded. 2The district court administratively closed the case in February 2011, but reinstated the case in March 2011 upon motion by Quantum. 3In support of its motion to dismiss, Bank explained that it sought dismissal so that it | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Benz v. Town Center Land, LLC
green
1 sentence2017Benz v. Town Ctr. 7 Land, LLC, 2013-NMCA-111, ¶ 24 , 314 P.3d 688 (“To preserve an issue for review 8 on appeal, it must appear that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial court on the 9 same grounds argued in the appellate court.” (internal quotation marks and citation 10 omitted)). 11 C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tarin's, Inc. v. Tinley
green
2 sentences2014See generally Watson v. Blakely, 1987- 5 NMCA-147, ¶ 14, 106 N.M. 687 , 748 P.2d 984 (stating that “[a]n order disposing of 6 the issues contained in the complaint but not the counterclaim is not a final 7 judgment”), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992- 8 NMSC-005, ¶ 25, 113 N.M 231, 824 P.2d 1033 ; Tarin’s, Inc. v. Tinley, 2000-NMCA- 9 048, ¶ 2, 129 N.M. 185 , 3 P.3d 680 (holding that a judgment containing no mention 10 of a counterclaim was not a final, appealable order). 11 {3} Garcia acknowledges the counterclaims, but nonetheless urges this Court to 12 2014See generally Watson v. Blakely, 1987- 5 NMCA-147, ¶ 14, 106 N.M. 687 , 748 P.2d 984 (stating that “[a]n order disposing of 6 the issues contained in the complaint but not the counterclaim is not a final 7 judgment”), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992- 8 NMSC-005, ¶ 25, 113 N.M 231, 824 P.2d 1033 ; Tarin’s, Inc. v. Tinley, 2000-NMCA- 9 048, ¶ 2, 129 N.M. 185 , 3 P.3d 680 (holding that a judgment containing no mention 10 of a counterclaim was not a final, appealable order). 11 {3} Garcia acknowledges the counterclaims, but nonetheless urges this Court to 12 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Khalsa v. Khalsa
green
2 sentences2007Bank relies on Khalsa v. Khalsa, 107 N.M. 31 , 751 P.2d 715 (Ct.App.1988). 2007Bank relies on Khalsa v. Khalsa, 107 N.M. 31 , 751 P.2d 715 (Ct.App.1988). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Comtrade, Inc. v. First National Bank of Highland Park
green
2 sentences2005Comtrade, Inc., 100 Ill.Dec. 549 , 497 N.E.2d at 529 . 2005Comtrade, Inc., 100 Ill.Dec. 549 , 497 N.E.2d at 529 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Texas American Bank/Levelland v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1990Texas American Bank/Levelland v. Morgan, 105 N.M. 416 , 733 P.2d 864 (1987). 1990Texas American Bank/Levelland v. Morgan, 105 N.M. 416 , 733 P.2d 864 (1987). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.