13 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hartman v. Texaco Inc.green2 sentences2021Cf. Hartman, 1997-NMCA-032, ¶ 25 (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering production because the resisting party failed to carry its burden to show that the work-product doctrine applied to each document). 2007Cf. Hartman, 1997-NMCA-032, ¶25 , 123 N.M. 220 , 937 P.2d 979 (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering production because the resisting party failed to carry its burden to show that the work-product doctrine applied to each document). | 2 | 3 |
Republican Party v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Departmentgreen2 sentences2024See Republican Party of N.M, 13 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 38 (“We discern no legally sound reason to recognize privileges 14 applicable to public records requests where we have not done so in the context of 15 litigation.”); see also id. ¶ 13 (“Without proof of the Legislature’s intent to the 16 contrary, we do not construe IPRA to contemplate privileges not applicable 17 elsewhere in our state government.”). 2024See Republican Party of N.M, 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 38 (“We discern no legally sound reason to recognize privileges applicable to public records requests where we have not done so in the context of litigation.”); see also id. ¶ 13 (“Without proof of the Legislature’s intent to the contrary, we do not construe IPRA to contemplate privileges not applicable elsewhere in our state government.”). | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Brandenburg v. Blackmergreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State ex rel. 6 Brandenburg v. Blackmer, 2005-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 7, 11 , 137 N.M. 258 , 110 P.3d 66 7 (resolving dispute over the work-product doctrine through writ of superintending 8 control). 9 B. 2025See, e.g., State ex rel. 6 Brandenburg v. Blackmer, 2005-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 7, 11 , 137 N.M. 258 , 110 P.3d 66 7 (resolving dispute over the work-product doctrine through writ of superintending 8 control). 9 B. | 1 | 2 |
Harter v. University of Indianapolisgreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Harter v. Univ. of Ind., 5 F.Supp.2d 657, 665 (S.D.Ind.1998) (explaining distinction, for the purpose of determining the scope of waiver of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, between defense based on a Ghent’s reliance on attorney-client communications and defense to respondeat superior liability based upon sufficiency of an attorney’s investigation); cf. Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 416, 421 (D.Del.2003) (“The attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are based on different public policies, protect different though frequently complementary | 1 | 1 |
Chimie v. PPG Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2007See, e.g., Harter v. Univ. of Ind., 5 F.Supp.2d 657, 665 (S.D.Ind.1998) (explaining distinction, for the purpose of determining the scope of waiver of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, between defense based on a Ghent’s reliance on attorney-client communications and defense to respondeat superior liability based upon sufficiency of an attorney’s investigation); cf. Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 416, 421 (D.Del.2003) (“The attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are based on different public policies, protect different though frequently complementary | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bing Sial Lianggreen2 sentences2005United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital.”); Liang, 747 N.E.2d at 118 (“[Information contained in the notes of [the prosecution team] is protected as work product.”); District Court, 790 P.2d at 335 (“The work product doctrine ... applies with equal, if not greater, force in criminal prosecutions.”). 2005United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital.”); Liang, 747 N.E.2d at 118 (“[Information contained in the notes of [the prosecution team] is protected as work product.”); District Court, 790 P.2d at 335 (“The work product doctrine ... applies with equal, if not greater, force in criminal prosecutions.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnergreen1 sentence2005See State v. Jackson, 97 N.M. 467, 468 , 641 P.2d 498, 499 (1982); State v. Jackson, 2004-NMCA-057, ¶ 5 , 135 N.M. 689 , 92 P.3d 1263 , cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-001 , 137 N.M. 17 , 106 P.3d 579 ; State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575, 582 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (Ct.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
People v. District Court of El Paso Countygreen2 sentences2005United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital.”); Liang, 747 N.E.2d at 118 (“[Information contained in the notes of [the prosecution team] is protected as work product.”); District Court, 790 P.2d at 335 (“The work product doctrine ... applies with equal, if not greater, force in criminal prosecutions.”). 2005United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital.”); Liang, 747 N.E.2d at 118 (“[Information contained in the notes of [the prosecution team] is protected as work product.”); District Court, 790 P.2d at 335 (“The work product doctrine ... applies with equal, if not greater, force in criminal prosecutions.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2005United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital.”); Liang, 747 N.E.2d at 118 (“[Information contained in the notes of [the prosecution team] is protected as work product.”); District Court, 790 P.2d at 335 (“The work product doctrine ... applies with equal, if not greater, force in criminal prosecutions.”). 2005United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (“Although the work-product doctrine most frequently is asserted as a bar to discovery in civil litigation, its role in assuring the proper functioning of the criminal justice system is even more vital.”); Liang, 747 N.E.2d at 118 (“[Information contained in the notes of [the prosecution team] is protected as work product.”); District Court, 790 P.2d at 335 (“The work product doctrine ... applies with equal, if not greater, force in criminal prosecutions.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2005See State v. Jackson, 97 N.M. 467, 468 , 641 P.2d 498, 499 (1982); State v. Jackson, 2004-NMCA-057, ¶ 5 , 135 N.M. 689 , 92 P.3d 1263 , cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-001 , 137 N.M. 17 , 106 P.3d 579 ; State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575, 582 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (Ct.App.1981). 2005See State v. Jackson, 97 N.M. 467, 468 , 641 P.2d 498, 499 (1982); State v. Jackson, 2004-NMCA-057, ¶ 5 , 135 N.M. 689 , 92 P.3d 1263 , cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-001 , 137 N.M. 17 , 106 P.3d 579 ; State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575, 582 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (Ct.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Hartman v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.green2 sentences1997See Hartman v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 107 N.M. 679, 686-87 , 763 P.2d 1144, 1151-52 (1988). 1997See Hartman v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 107 N.M. 679, 686-87 , 763 P.2d 1144, 1151-52 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Haskell v. Siegmundgreen2 sentences1966See Haskell v. Siegmund, 28 Ill.App.2d 1 , 170 N.E.2d 393 . 1966See Haskell v. Siegmund, 28 Ill.App.2d 1 , 170 N.E.2d 393 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 763473
green
2 sentences2022Citing an out-of- state case, Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999), Irby proposes that “those parts of billing records that reflect the client’s identity, the amount of the fee, the case file name, and the general purpose of the work performed are not protected” by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. 2022We are not persuaded for several reasons. {9} First, citing an out-of-state case, Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999), Allison proposes that “those parts of billing records that reflect the client’s identity, the amount of the fee, the case file name, and the general purpose of the work performed are not protected” by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Albuquerque Journal v. Board of Educ.
green
2 sentences2023Assuming that Horton’s affidavits establish a preexisting or contemporaneous agreement of the parties, Horton does not demonstrate that the agreement reflected a “shared identical legal interest” or that the protected communications were each “made during the course of a joint defense effort between the resisting party and the third party and in furtherance of that effort.” See id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2 Horton refers also to the work product doctrine and the mediation privilege— two separate protections from discovery with separate analyses and controlling facts. 2023We decline to address either as these protections are raised in two sentences without application of the cited law, Rule 11-503(B)(3) and NMSA 1978, Section 44-7B-4 (2007), to the facts of the present case. 27 As a result, Horton did not meet “the burden of proving all elements of the privilege as to each communication claimed to be privileged.” See id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Headley v. Morgan Management Corp.
green
1 sentence2022See In re Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 2; Headley, 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp.
green
2 sentences2022Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp., 2007-NMCA-133, ¶ 38 , 143 N.M. 215 , 175 P.3d 309 , Irby appears the material related only to the general purpose of the work performed. 2022Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp., 2007-NMCA-133, ¶ 38 , 143 N.M. 215 , 175 P.3d 309 , Irby appears the material related only to the general purpose of the work performed. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2005See State v. Jackson, 97 N.M. 467, 468 , 641 P.2d 498, 499 (1982); State v. Jackson, 2004-NMCA-057, ¶ 5 , 135 N.M. 689 , 92 P.3d 1263 , cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-001 , 137 N.M. 17 , 106 P.3d 579 ; State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575, 582 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (Ct.App.1981). 2005See State v. Jackson, 97 N.M. 467, 468 , 641 P.2d 498, 499 (1982); State v. Jackson, 2004-NMCA-057, ¶ 5 , 135 N.M. 689 , 92 P.3d 1263 , cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-001 , 137 N.M. 17 , 106 P.3d 579 ; State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575, 582 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (Ct.App.1981). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In re Lucero
green
1 sentence2005See State v. Jackson, 97 N.M. 467, 468 , 641 P.2d 498, 499 (1982); State v. Jackson, 2004-NMCA-057, ¶ 5 , 135 N.M. 689 , 92 P.3d 1263 , cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-001 , 137 N.M. 17 , 106 P.3d 579 ; State v. Turner, 97 N.M. 575, 582 , 642 P.2d 178, 185 (Ct.App.1981). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Steinkraus
green
2 sentences1982State v. Steinkraus, 76 N.M. 617 , 417 P.2d 431 (1966), states: “In theory, at least, the work-product doctrine only bars discovery before trial.” See R.Crim.Proc. 28(c). 1982State v. Steinkraus, 76 N.M. 617 , 417 P.2d 431 (1966), states: “In theory, at least, the work-product doctrine only bars discovery before trial.” See R.Crim.Proc. 28(c). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.