13 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Armijo Ex Rel. Armijo v. Regents of the University of New Mexicogreen2 sentences2022Co., 1987-NMCA-015 , ¶¶ 8, 13, 16 (noting the principle of strictly construing exceptions to statutes of limitations and concluding that Section 41-5-13’s minority tolling provision “appl[ied] only to minors who suffer an alleged act of malpractice and not to minors who are beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act” in part because “minority disability saving a person from the operation of the statute of limitations is a personal privilege limited to the minor under the disability only and cannot confer rights on other persons asserting actions”); accord Armijo v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 19 2022Co., 1987-NMCA-015 , ¶¶ 8, 13, 16 (noting the principle of strictly construing exceptions to statutes of limitations and concluding that Section 41-5-13’s minority tolling provision “appl[ied] only to minors who suffer an alleged act of malpractice and not to minors who are beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act” in part because “minority disability saving a person from the operation of the statute of limitations is a personal privilege limited to the minor under the disability only and cannot confer rights on other persons asserting actions”); accord Armijo v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 19 | 2 | 3 |
Presley v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2015Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has “uniformly recognized the public-trial guarantee as one created for the benefit of the defendant.” Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2015Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has “uniformly recognized the public-trial guarantee as one created for the benefit of the defendant.” Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
James McLaughlin v. Albert Tilendisgreen2 sentences1973McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287 , (7th Cir.1968); Nelson v. Knox, 256 F.2d 312 (6th Cir.1958)." McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287, 290 (7th Cir.1968), involved the applicability of statutorily created immunity under Illinois law. 1973McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287 , (7th Cir.1968); Nelson v. Knox, 256 F.2d 312 (6th Cir.1958)." McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287, 290 (7th Cir.1968), involved the applicability of statutorily created immunity under Illinois law. | 2 | 2 |
Raburn v. Nashgreen2 sentences2008See Raburn v. Nash, 78 N.M. 385, 387 , 431 P.2d 874, 876 (1967) (stating that the constitutional right to a speedy trial is a personal privilege that may be waived). 2008See Raburn v. Nash, 78 N.M. 385, 387 , 431 P.2d 874, 876 (1967) (stating that the constitutional right to a speedy trial is a personal privilege that may be waived). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2011See State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 65 , 126 N.M. 4 338, 969 P.2d 313 . 2011See State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 65 , 126 N.M. 4 338, 969 P.2d 313 . | 1 | 1 |
James H. Ellis, Jr. v. United States of America, Alfred M. Watkins v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1998That right is personal, and may not be vicariously asserted by another.”), with Ellis, 416 F.2d at 799 (concluding that, although “[o]rdinarily a defendant does not have standing to complain of an erroneous ruling on the scope of the privilege of a witness,” a “defendant does have standing ... to complain that [a] conviction was obtained in a ease where the trial judge went outside [the] judicial province to grant immunity to a witness”). {66} In any event, we see no discernible difference between a statutory provision and comparable, properly enacted, court rules; Rule 5-116 and Rule 11-412 l | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Carl Skolekgreen1 sentence1998Compare United States v. Skolek, 474 F.2d 582, 584 (10th Cir.1973) (“The privilege against self-incrimination is solely for the benefit of the witness and is purely a personal privilege of the witness, not for the protection of other parties.”), and People v. Douglas, 50 Cal.3d 468 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 126 , 788 P.2d 640, 656 (1990) (en banc) (“[D]efendant lacks standing to object to any perceived violation of [the witness’s] privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Douglasgreen2 sentences1998Compare United States v. Skolek, 474 F.2d 582, 584 (10th Cir.1973) (“The privilege against self-incrimination is solely for the benefit of the witness and is purely a personal privilege of the witness, not for the protection of other parties.”), and People v. Douglas, 50 Cal.3d 468 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 126 , 788 P.2d 640, 656 (1990) (en banc) (“[D]efendant lacks standing to object to any perceived violation of [the witness’s] privilege against self-incrimination. 1998Compare United States v. Skolek, 474 F.2d 582, 584 (10th Cir.1973) (“The privilege against self-incrimination is solely for the benefit of the witness and is purely a personal privilege of the witness, not for the protection of other parties.”), and People v. Douglas, 50 Cal.3d 468 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 126 , 788 P.2d 640, 656 (1990) (en banc) (“[D]efendant lacks standing to object to any perceived violation of [the witness’s] privilege against self-incrimination. | 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. an Xuan Nguyen
green
2 sentences2015“A personal waiver by the defendant is not required for all of these decisions.” Id. 2015“A personal waiver by the defendant is not required for all of these decisions.” Id. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Alice P. Nelson, Administratrix of the Estate of Ronald Nelson, Deceased v. David R. Knox, Robert C. Akins
green
2 sentences1973McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287 , (7th Cir. 1968); Nelson v. Knox, 256 F. 2d 312 (6th Cir. 1958).” McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287, 290 (7th Cir. 1968), involved the applicability of statutorily created immunity under Illinois law. 1973McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287 , (7th Cir.1968); Nelson v. Knox, 256 F.2d 312 (6th Cir.1958)." McLaughlin v. Tilendis, 398 F.2d 287, 290 (7th Cir.1968), involved the applicability of statutorily created immunity under Illinois law. | 2 | 1973–1973 |
Kastigar v. United States
green
2 sentences1998That right is personal, and may not be vicariously asserted by another.”), with Ellis, 416 F.2d at 799 (concluding that, although “[o]rdinarily a defendant does not have standing to complain of an erroneous ruling on the scope of the privilege of a witness,” a “defendant does have standing ... to complain that [a] conviction was obtained in a ease where the trial judge went outside [the] judicial province to grant immunity to a witness”). {66} In any event, we see no discernible difference between a statutory provision and comparable, properly enacted, court rules; Rule 5-116 and Rule 11-412 l 1998That right is personal, and may not be vicariously asserted by another.”), with Ellis, 416 F.2d at 799 (concluding that, although “[o]rdinarily a defendant does not have standing to complain of an erroneous ruling on the scope of the privilege of a witness,” a “defendant does have standing ... to complain that [a] conviction was obtained in a ease where the trial judge went outside [the] judicial province to grant immunity to a witness”). {66} In any event, we see no discernible difference between a statutory provision and comparable, properly enacted, court rules; Rule 5-116 and Rule 11-412 l | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Vigil
green
2 sentences1988Cf. Raburn v. Nash, 78 N.M. 385 , 431 P.2d 874 (1967) (both constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial held a personal privilege that may be waived); State v. Vigil, 85 N.M. 328 , 512 P.2d 88 (Ct.App. 1973) (dismissal of criminal charge for failure to commence trial within time requirements is not mandatory unless defendant seeks dismissal). 1988Cf. Raburn v. Nash, 78 N.M. 385 , 431 P.2d 874 (1967) (both constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial held a personal privilege that may be waived); State v. Vigil, 85 N.M. 328 , 512 P.2d 88 (Ct.App. 1973) (dismissal of criminal charge for failure to commence trial within time requirements is not mandatory unless defendant seeks dismissal). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Regents of the University of New Mexico v. Armijo Ex Rel. Armijo
green
2 sentences1987Armijo v. Regents of University of New Mexico, 103 N.M. 183 , 704 P.2d 437 (Ct.App.1984) (citing Slade v. Slade), rev’d as to another issue, 103 N.M. 174 , 704 P.2d 428 (1985). 1987Armijo v. Regents of University of New Mexico, 103 N.M. 183 , 704 P.2d 437 (Ct.App.1984) (citing Slade v. Slade), rev’d as to another issue, 103 N.M. 174 , 704 P.2d 428 (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Slade v. Slade
green
2 sentences1984Slade v. Slade, 81 N.M. 462 , 468 P.2d 627 (1970). 1984Slade v. Slade, 81 N.M. 462 , 468 P.2d 627 (1970). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Balles
green
2 sentences1973In the early case of State v. Balles, 24 N.M. 16 , 172 P. 196 (1918), we held this right to be tried in the county or district to be a right or privilege to a particular venue which “ * * * may be waived by an accused person in a number of ways, and that, when he goes to trial in another judicial district, without objection on his part, he has waived the privilege, and cannot be heard to say that the court trying him was without jurisdiction. * * * ” Also to the effect that this provision of our constitution confers a personal privilege of venue upon an accused, and that this privilege may be 1973In the early case of State v. Balles, 24 N.M. 16 , 172 P. 196 (1918), we held this right to be tried in the county or district to be a right or privilege to a particular venue which “ * * * may be waived by an accused person in a number of ways, and that, when he goes to trial in another judicial district, without objection on his part, he has waived the privilege, and cannot be heard to say that the court trying him was without jurisdiction. * * * ” Also to the effect that this provision of our constitution confers a personal privilege of venue upon an accused, and that this privilege may be | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1973In the early case of State v. Balles, 24 N.M. 16 , 172 P. 196 (1918), we held this right to be tried in the county or district to be a right or privilege to a particular venue which “ * * * may be waived by an accused person in a number of ways, and that, when he goes to trial in another judicial district, without objection on his part, he has waived the privilege, and cannot be heard to say that the court trying him was without jurisdiction. * * * ” Also to the effect that this provision of our constitution confers a personal privilege of venue upon an accused, and that this privilege may be | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Shroyer
green
2 sentences1973In the early case of State v. Balles, 24 N.M. 16 , 172 P. 196 (1918), we held this right to be tried in the county or district to be a right or privilege to a particular venue which “ * * * may be waived by an accused person in a number of ways, and that, when he goes to trial in another judicial district, without objection on his part, he has waived the privilege, and cannot be heard to say that the court trying him was without jurisdiction. * * * ” Also to the effect that this provision of our constitution confers a personal privilege of venue upon an accused, and that this privilege may be 1973In the early case of State v. Balles, 24 N.M. 16 , 172 P. 196 (1918), we held this right to be tried in the county or district to be a right or privilege to a particular venue which “ * * * may be waived by an accused person in a number of ways, and that, when he goes to trial in another judicial district, without objection on his part, he has waived the privilege, and cannot be heard to say that the court trying him was without jurisdiction. * * * ” Also to the effect that this provision of our constitution confers a personal privilege of venue upon an accused, and that this privilege may be | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Bogart
neutral
2 sentences1973In the early case of State v. Balles, 24 N.M. 16 , 172 P. 196 (1918), we held this right to be tried in the county or district to be a right or privilege to a particular venue which “ * * * may be waived by an accused person in a number of ways, and that, when he goes to trial in another judicial district, without objection on his part, he has waived the privilege, and cannot be heard to say that the court trying him was without jurisdiction. * * * ” Also to the effect that this provision of our constitution confers a personal privilege of venue upon an accused, and that this privilege may be 1973In the early case of State v. Balles, 24 N.M. 16 , 172 P. 196 (1918), we held this right to be tried in the county or district to be a right or privilege to a particular venue which “ * * * may be waived by an accused person in a number of ways, and that, when he goes to trial in another judicial district, without objection on his part, he has waived the privilege, and cannot be heard to say that the court trying him was without jurisdiction. * * * ” Also to the effect that this provision of our constitution confers a personal privilege of venue upon an accused, and that this privilege may be | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Glasscock
green
2 sentences1973To the extent that the language in State v. Glasscock, 76 N.M. 367 , 415 P.2d 56 (1966), may suggest or be construed as holding that venue may not be waived, the opinion in that case is hereby overruled. 1973To the extent that the language in State v. Glasscock, 76 N.M. 367 , 415 P.2d 56 (1966), may suggest or be construed as holding that venue may not be waived, the opinion in that case is hereby overruled. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.