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 1965–2025 5 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. Rileygreen2 sentences2023See Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 33-34 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 (stating that “[s]tare decisis is the judicial obligation to follow precedent” and that “particular questions must be considered before overturning precedent”); State v. Riley, 2010- NMSC-005, ¶ 40, 147 N.M. 557 , 226 P.3d 656 (Chávez, J., specially concurring) (“[The appellant] does not make a case for us to overrule our precedent by applying the factors relevant to a stare decisis analysis” but “simply asks us to reconsider [our] holding,” which “lacks the disciplined approach we have required in numer 2023See Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 33-34 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 (stating that “[s]tare decisis is the judicial obligation to follow precedent” and that “particular questions must be considered before overturning precedent”); State v. Riley, 2010- NMSC-005, ¶ 40, 147 N.M. 557 , 226 P.3d 656 (Chávez, J., specially concurring) (“[The appellant] does not make a case for us to overrule our precedent by applying the factors relevant to a stare decisis analysis” but “simply asks us to reconsider [our] holding,” which “lacks the disciplined approach we have required in numer | 3 | 4 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2022See State v. Riley, 2010-NMSC-005, ¶ 40 , 147 N.M. 557 , 226 P.3d 656 (Chávez, J., specially concurring) (“[The appellant] does not make a case for us to overrule our precedent by applying the factors relevant to a stare decisis analysis. . . . [The appellant’s] request lacks the disciplined approach we have required in numerous opinions on the subject of stare decisis.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 54 , 306 P.3d 426 ; cf. Arco Materials, Inc. v. N.M. 2019This unilluminating 21 request lacks the disciplined approach we have required in numerous opinions on 22 the subject of stare decisis.” (citation omitted)), overruled on other grounds by 23 State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 54 , 306 P.3d 426 . 14 1 {21} Applying Padilla I, we conclude that Defendant’s convictions for 2 aggravated fleeing and resisting, evading or obstructing an officer (Section 30-22- 3 1(B)) for the same course of conduct violate double jeopardy. | 1 | 3 |
City of Las Vegas v. Omangreen2 sentences2019See Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC-030 , ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717 , 507 P.2d 778 (“The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down therein as correct or incorrect.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 1990-NMCA-069 , ¶ 35, 110 N.M. 425 , 796 P.2d 1121 (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis presumes that a court will apply the rules of law previously announced by courts of the same jurisd 2019See Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC-030 , ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717 , 507 P.2d 778 (“The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down therein as correct or incorrect.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 1990-NMCA-069 , ¶ 35, 110 N.M. 425 , 796 P.2d 1121 (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis presumes that a court will apply the rules of law previously announced by courts of the same jurisd | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pierigreen2 sentences2025See State v. Pieri, 2009-NMSC-019, ¶ 21 , 146 N.M. 155 , 207 P.3d 1132 (outlining issues that must be considered before overturning prior case law); see also State v. Chavez, 2021-NMSC-017 , ¶¶ 50-54, 485 P.3d 1279 (refusing to overturn Shije- Franco line of cases for failure to develop stare decisis argument). 2025See State v. Pieri, 2009-NMSC-019, ¶ 21 , 146 N.M. 155 , 207 P.3d 1132 (outlining issues that must be considered before overturning prior case law); see also State v. Chavez, 2021-NMSC-017 , ¶¶ 50-54, 485 P.3d 1279 (refusing to overturn Shije- Franco line of cases for failure to develop stare decisis argument). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chavezgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Pieri, 2009-NMSC-019, ¶ 21 , 146 N.M. 155 , 207 P.3d 1132 (outlining issues that must be considered before overturning prior case law); see also State v. Chavez, 2021-NMSC-017 , ¶¶ 50-54, 485 P.3d 1279 (refusing to overturn Shije- Franco line of cases for failure to develop stare decisis argument). | 1 | 1 |
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2023See Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 33-34 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 (stating that “[s]tare decisis is the judicial obligation to follow precedent” and that “particular questions must be considered before overturning precedent”); State v. Riley, 2010- NMSC-005, ¶ 40, 147 N.M. 557 , 226 P.3d 656 (Chávez, J., specially concurring) (“[The appellant] does not make a case for us to overrule our precedent by applying the factors relevant to a stare decisis analysis” but “simply asks us to reconsider [our] holding,” which “lacks the disciplined approach we have required in numer 2023See Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 33-34 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 (stating that “[s]tare decisis is the judicial obligation to follow precedent” and that “particular questions must be considered before overturning precedent”); State v. Riley, 2010- NMSC-005, ¶ 40, 147 N.M. 557 , 226 P.3d 656 (Chávez, J., specially concurring) (“[The appellant] does not make a case for us to overrule our precedent by applying the factors relevant to a stare decisis analysis” but “simply asks us to reconsider [our] holding,” which “lacks the disciplined approach we have required in numer | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Communitygreen1 sentence2021We are not persuaded that we should depart from the doctrine of stare decisis—our duty to follow precedent—“a foundation stone of the rule of law,” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 798 (2014), that “lies at the very core of the judicial process.” Herrera v. Quality Pontiac, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 15 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (citation omitted). {34} The State has not persuaded us that Duhon was mistakenly decided. | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgadogreen2 sentences2019See Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC-030 , ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717 , 507 P.2d 778 (“The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down therein as correct or incorrect.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 1990-NMCA-069 , ¶ 35, 110 N.M. 425 , 796 P.2d 1121 (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis presumes that a court will apply the rules of law previously announced by courts of the same jurisd 2019See Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC-030 , ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717 , 507 P.2d 778 (“The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down therein as correct or incorrect.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 1990-NMCA-069 , ¶ 35, 110 N.M. 425 , 796 P.2d 1121 (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis presumes that a court will apply the rules of law previously announced by courts of the same jurisd | 1 | 1 |
Padilla v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2004See Padilla, 2003-NMSC-011, ¶ 5 , 133 N.M. 661 , 68 P.3d 901 (noting that, in contrast to the doctrine of stare decisis, "the principle that cases do not stand for propositions not considered ... is intended to dissuade a later court from attributing meaning to an earlier opinion that was not contemplated by its drafters"). {40} Third, while I agree that the MFRA expresses the policy that third-party claimants are intended beneficiaries of liability insurance contracts, I see no need to look beyond the Insurance Code to the MFRA for clues to the meaning of the Code. 2004See Padilla, 2003-NMSC-011, ¶ 5 , 133 N.M. 661 , 68 P.3d 901 (noting that, in contrast to the doctrine of stare decisis, "the principle that cases do not stand for propositions not considered ... is intended to dissuade a later court from attributing meaning to an earlier opinion that was not contemplated by its drafters"). {40} Third, while I agree that the MFRA expresses the policy that third-party claimants are intended beneficiaries of liability insurance contracts, I see no need to look beyond the Insurance Code to the MFRA for clues to the meaning of the Code. | 1 | 1 |
Hicks v. Statered2 sentences1994While the doctrine serves the values of uniformity, predictability, and stability in the law, City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 110 N.M. 425, 433 , 796 P.2d 1121, 1129 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282 , 795 P.2d 87 (1990), it was never meant “to perpetuate the harsh and unjust results which blind adherence ... mandated,” Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 591 , 544 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1975), or to effectuate a “petrifying rigidity” in the law, Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 425 , 589 P.2d 201, 209 (Ct.App.) (Sutin, J., dissenting) (quoting Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3, 11 , 143 N.E.2d 3, 1994While the doctrine serves the values of uniformity, predictability, and stability in the law, City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 110 N.M. 425, 433 , 796 P.2d 1121, 1129 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282 , 795 P.2d 87 (1990), it was never meant “to perpetuate the harsh and unjust results which blind adherence ... mandated,” Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 591 , 544 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1975), or to effectuate a “petrifying rigidity” in the law, Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 425 , 589 P.2d 201, 209 (Ct.App.) (Sutin, J., dissenting) (quoting Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3, 11 , 143 N.E.2d 3, | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Currygreen2 sentences1994While the doctrine serves the values of uniformity, predictability, and stability in the law, City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 110 N.M. 425, 433 , 796 P.2d 1121, 1129 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282 , 795 P.2d 87 (1990), it was never meant “to perpetuate the harsh and unjust results which blind adherence ... mandated,” Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 591 , 544 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1975), or to effectuate a “petrifying rigidity” in the law, Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 425 , 589 P.2d 201, 209 (Ct.App.) (Sutin, J., dissenting) (quoting Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3, 11 , 143 N.E.2d 3, 1994While the doctrine serves the values of uniformity, predictability, and stability in the law, City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 110 N.M. 425, 433 , 796 P.2d 1121, 1129 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282 , 795 P.2d 87 (1990), it was never meant “to perpetuate the harsh and unjust results which blind adherence ... mandated,” Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 591 , 544 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1975), or to effectuate a “petrifying rigidity” in the law, Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 425 , 589 P.2d 201, 209 (Ct.App.) (Sutin, J., dissenting) (quoting Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3, 11 , 143 N.E.2d 3, | 1 | 1 |
Bing v. Thuniggreen2 sentences1994While the doctrine serves the values of uniformity, predictability, and stability in the law, City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 110 N.M. 425, 433 , 796 P.2d 1121, 1129 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282 , 795 P.2d 87 (1990), it was never meant “to perpetuate the harsh and unjust results which blind adherence ... mandated,” Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 591 , 544 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1975), or to effectuate a “petrifying rigidity” in the law, Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 425 , 589 P.2d 201, 209 (Ct.App.) (Sutin, J., dissenting) (quoting Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3, 11 , 143 N.E.2d 3, 1994While the doctrine serves the values of uniformity, predictability, and stability in the law, City of Las Vegas v. Oman, 110 N.M. 425, 433 , 796 P.2d 1121, 1129 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 110 N.M. 282 , 795 P.2d 87 (1990), it was never meant “to perpetuate the harsh and unjust results which blind adherence ... mandated,” Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 591 , 544 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1975), or to effectuate a “petrifying rigidity” in the law, Cooper v. Curry, 92 N.M. 417, 425 , 589 P.2d 201, 209 (Ct.App.) (Sutin, J., dissenting) (quoting Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 , 163 N.Y.S.2d 3, 11 , 143 N.E.2d 3, | 1 | 1 |
Langenegger v. State ex rel. Blissgreen2 sentences1990See In re Applications of Langenegger, 64 N.M. 218 , 326 P.2d 1098 (1958); State ex rel. 1990See In re Applications of Langenegger, 64 N.M. 218 , 326 P.2d 1098 (1958); State ex rel. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arco Materials, Inc. v. STATE, TRD
green
2 sentences2022Tax’n & Revenue Dep’t, 1994-NMCA-062 , ¶ 3, 118 N.M. 12 , 878 P.2d 330 (stating that a formal Court of Appeals opinion is controlling even when our Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review the case), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. 2022Tax’n & Revenue Dep’t, 1994-NMCA-062 , ¶ 3, 118 N.M. 12 , 878 P.2d 330 (stating that a formal Court of Appeals opinion is controlling even when our Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review the case), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Herrera Ex Rel. Estate of Ruiz v. Quality Pontiac
green
2 sentences2021We are not persuaded that we should depart from the doctrine of stare decisis—our duty to follow precedent—“a foundation stone of the rule of law,” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 798 (2014), that “lies at the very core of the judicial process.” Herrera v. Quality Pontiac, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 15 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (citation omitted). {34} The State has not persuaded us that Duhon was mistakenly decided. 2021We are not persuaded that we should depart from the doctrine of stare decisis—our duty to follow precedent—“a foundation stone of the rule of law,” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 798 (2014), that “lies at the very core of the judicial process.” Herrera v. Quality Pontiac, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 15 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (citation omitted). {34} The State has not persuaded us that Duhon was mistakenly decided. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Par Five Servs., LLC v. N.M. Tax'n & Revenue Dep't and Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc. v. N.M. Tax'n & Revenue Dep't
neutral
2 sentences2021DISCUSSION1 {2} Taxpayer’s arguments are largely foreclosed by the doctrine of stare decisis and this Court’s recent opinion in Par Five Services, LLC v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 2021-NMCA-025 , 489 P.3d 983 . 2021DISCUSSION1 {2} Taxpayer’s arguments are largely foreclosed by the doctrine of stare decisis and this Court’s recent opinion in Par Five Services, LLC v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department, 2021-NMCA-025 , 489 P.3d 983 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Dominguez
red
2 sentences2010Defendant simply asks us to reconsider the holding in State v. Dominguez, 2005-NMSC-001 , 137 N.M. 1 , 106 P.3d 563 . 2010Defendant simply asks us to reconsider the holding in State v. Dominguez, 2005-NMSC-001 , 137 N.M. 1 , 106 P.3d 563 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Knowles
green
1 sentence1965Baca v. Chavez, 32 N.M. 210 , 252 P. 987 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Baca v. Chavez
neutral
1 sentence1965Baca v. Chavez, 32 N.M. 210 , 252 P. 987 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.