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.
480 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2026 85 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. Attawaygreen2 sentences2020See State v. Attaway, 1994-NMSC-011 , ¶ 8, 117 N.M. 141 , 870 P.2d 103 (applying a de novo standard to threshold constitutional issues). 2020See State v. Attaway, 1994-NMSC-011 , ¶ 8, 117 N.M. 141 , 870 P.2d 103 (applying a de novo standard to threshold constitutional issues). | 9 | 15 |
State v. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2024“We generally apply a de novo standard of review to the constitutional question of whether there has been a double jeopardy violation.” State v. Cummings, 2018-NMCA-055 , ¶ 6, 425 P.3d 745 . 2022“We generally apply a de novo standard of review to the 13 constitutional question of whether there has been a double jeopardy violation.” State 14 v. Cummings, 2018-NMCA-055 , ¶ 6, 425 P.3d 745 . | 8 | 14 |
State v. Andazolagreen2 sentences2026State v. Andazola, 2003-NMCA-146, ¶ 14 , 134 N.M. 710 , 82 P.3d 77 . 2026State v. Andazola, 2003-NMCA-146, ¶ 14 , 134 N.M. 710 , 82 P.3d 77 . | 4 | 21 |
State v. Williamsongreen2 sentences2022In support of their conclusion, the majority cites Williamson, 2009-NMSC-039, ¶ 27 , stating: Our Supreme Court in Williamson approved the continued use of a de novo standard of review for the application of the law to the district court’s findings of fact when reviewing a decision involving probable cause to conduct a warrantless search. 2022Our Supreme Court in Williamson approved the continued use of a de novo standard of review for the application of the law to the district court’s findings of fact when reviewing a pretrial decision involving probable cause to conduct a warrantless search. 2009-NMSC-039, ¶ 27 . {34} We therefore conclude that a de novo standard should be applied to our review of the application of the law of probable cause to the district court’s findings of fact, or to undisputed facts in the record. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-111, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 705 , 191 P.3d 563 (“We generally apply a de novo standard of review to the constitutional question of whether there has been a double jeopardy violation.”). {4} As relevant here, the double jeopardy clause protects defendants from receiving “multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 23 , 306 P.3d 426 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2022See State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-111, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 705 , 191 P.3d 563 (“We generally apply a de novo standard of review to the constitutional question of whether there has been a double jeopardy violation.”). {4} As relevant here, the double jeopardy clause protects defendants from receiving “multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 23 , 306 P.3d 426 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 4 | 5 |
| Western Bank of Las Cruces v. Maloolygreen | 4 | 4 |
State v. Romangreen2 sentences2011See State v. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶ 8 , 125 N.M. 688 , 964 P.2d 14 852 (recognizing that a de novo standard of review applies to the interpretation and 15 application of Rule 5-204). 2011See State v. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶ 8 , 125 N.M. 688 , 964 P.2d 14 852 (recognizing that a de novo standard of review applies to the interpretation and 15 application of Rule 5-204). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Gonzalesred2 sentences2009See, e.g., Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 8 , 139 N.M. 647 , 137 P.3d 587 ; State v. Gonzales, 2003-NMCA-008, ¶ 13 , 133 N.M. 158 , 61 P.3d 867 . 2009See, e.g., Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 8 , 139 N.M. 647 , 137 P.3d 587 ; State v. Gonzales, 2003-NMCA-008, ¶ 13 , 133 N.M. 158 , 61 P.3d 867 . | 3 | 5 |
Ramirez v. IBP Prepared Foodsgreen2 sentences2019See Ramirez v. IBP Prepared Foods, 2001- NMCA-036, ¶ 10, 130 N.M. 559 , 28 P.3d 1100 (stating that interpretation of a workers’ compensation statute is a question of law to be reviewed de novo), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Baca v. Los Lunas Cmty. Programs, 2011-NMCA- 008, 149 N.M. 198 , 246 P.3d 1070 ; Truong v. Allstate Ins. 2019See Ramirez v. IBP Prepared Foods, 2001- NMCA-036, ¶ 10, 130 N.M. 559 , 28 P.3d 1100 (stating that interpretation of a workers’ compensation statute is a question of law to be reviewed de novo), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Baca v. Los Lunas Cmty. Programs, 2011-NMCA- 008, 149 N.M. 198 , 246 P.3d 1070 ; Truong v. Allstate Ins. | 3 | 4 |
| Brooks v. Norwest Corp.green | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Chavarriagreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Gutierrezgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Swafford v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Wisdomred | 3 | 3 |
Dewitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.green2 sentences2025SW Research contends that this evidence is relevant to the decision to allow the construction of the fifth shaft because it would expose Permittees’ ulterior motive for the modification of the ventilation system. {27} “With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence [in an administrative proceeding], we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment, but we apply a de novo standard to review any interpretations of law underlying the evidentiary ruling.” Dewitt v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 2009-NMSC-032 2025SW Research contends that this evidence is relevant to the decision to allow the construction of the fifth shaft because it would expose Permittees’ ulterior motive for the modification of the ventilation system. {27} “With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence [in an administrative proceeding], we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment, but we apply a de novo standard to review any interpretations of law underlying the evidentiary ruling.” Dewitt v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 2009-NMSC-032 | 2 | 34 |
State v. LaPIETRAgreen2 sentences2023DISCUSSION {5} “The contours of the district court’s power to conduct a pretrial hearing on a motion to dismiss charges brought under Rule 5-601 is a legal question reviewed under a de novo standard.” State v. LaPietra, 2010-NMCA-009, ¶ 5 , 147 N.M. 569 , 226 P.3d 668 . 2023DISCUSSION {5} “The contours of the district court’s power to conduct a pretrial hearing on a motion to dismiss charges brought under Rule 5-601 is a legal question reviewed under a de novo standard.” State v. LaPietra, 2010-NMCA-009, ¶ 5 , 147 N.M. 569 , 226 P.3d 668 . | 2 | 6 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2023Further, “[a] misapprehension of the law upon which a court bases 13 an otherwise discretionary evidentiary ruling is subject to de novo review.” State v. 14 Lymon, 2021-NMSC-021, ¶ 36 , 488 P.3d 610 (internal quotation marks omitted) 15 (quoting State v. Martinez, 2008-NMSC-060, ¶ 10 , 145 N.M. 220 , 195 P.3d 1232 ). 16 {9} Defendant argues that this Court should apply a de novo standard of review 17 because the district court misapprehended the law when it “stated that it lacked 18 discretion to limit impeachment with prior convictions because [Defendant] opened 19 the door by testifying.” T 2023Further, “[a] misapprehension of the law upon which a court bases 13 an otherwise discretionary evidentiary ruling is subject to de novo review.” State v. 14 Lymon, 2021-NMSC-021, ¶ 36 , 488 P.3d 610 (internal quotation marks omitted) 15 (quoting State v. Martinez, 2008-NMSC-060, ¶ 10 , 145 N.M. 220 , 195 P.3d 1232 ). 16 {9} Defendant argues that this Court should apply a de novo standard of review 17 because the district court misapprehended the law when it “stated that it lacked 18 discretion to limit impeachment with prior convictions because [Defendant] opened 19 the door by testifying.” T | 2 | 5 |
DeArmond v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.green2 sentences2022Standard of Review {6} “We apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.” Peavy v. Skilled Healthcare Grp., Inc., 2020-NMSC-010, ¶ 9 , 470 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] motion to compel arbitration may only be granted as a matter of law when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an agreement.” DeArmond v. Halliburton Energy Servs., 2003-NMCA-148, ¶ 4 , 134 N.M. 630 , 81 P.3d 573 . 2022Standard of Review {6} “We apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.” Peavy v. Skilled Healthcare Grp., Inc., 2020-NMSC-010, ¶ 9 , 470 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] motion to compel arbitration may only be granted as a matter of law when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an agreement.” DeArmond v. Halliburton Energy Servs., 2003-NMCA-148, ¶ 4 , 134 N.M. 630 , 81 P.3d 573 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Nycered2 sentences2012“This review is limited to the contents of the affidavit.” State v. Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 8 , 139 N.M. 647 , 137 P.3d 587 , overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 2009-NMSC-039 , ¶ 29 & n.l (disavowing the de novo standard of review of probable cause for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant). {11} “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and [A]rticle II, [S]ection 10 of the New Mexico Constitution both require probable cause to believe that a crime is occurring or seizable evidence exists at a particular location before a search warrant may issue.” Williamson, 2009-NMSC 2012“This review is limited to the contents of the affidavit.” State v. Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 8 , 139 N.M. 647 , 137 P.3d 587 , overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 2009-NMSC-039 , ¶ 29 & n.l (disavowing the de novo standard of review of probable cause for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant). {11} “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and [A]rticle II, [S]ection 10 of the New Mexico Constitution both require probable cause to believe that a crime is occurring or seizable evidence exists at a particular location before a search warrant may issue.” Williamson, 2009-NMSC | 2 | 5 |
State v. Nycegreen2 sentences2012“This review is limited to the contents of the affidavit.” State v. Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 8 , 139 N.M. 647 , 137 P.3d 587 , overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 2009-NMSC-039 , ¶ 29 & n.l (disavowing the de novo standard of review of probable cause for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant). {11} “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and [A]rticle II, [S]ection 10 of the New Mexico Constitution both require probable cause to believe that a crime is occurring or seizable evidence exists at a particular location before a search warrant may issue.” Williamson, 2009-NMSC 2011“There are no ‘bright line, hard-and-fast rules’ for determining probable cause, but the degree of proof necessary to establish probable cause is ‘more than a suspicion or possibility but less than a certainty of proof.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Nyce, 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 10 , 139 N.M. 647 , 137 P.3d 587 , overruled in part on other grounds by Williamson, 2009-NMSC-039 , 146 N.M. 488 , 212 P.3d 376 (expressly disavowing the de novo standard of review)). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2012This Court applies a de novo standard of 11 review when considering legal questions concerning the interpretation of Supreme 12 Court rules and the district court’s application of the law to the facts of this case. 13 State v. Foster, 2003-NMCA-099 , ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 224 , 75 P.3d 824 . 14 The law regarding the six-month rule has been in flux while this case was 15 pending. 2012This Court applies a de novo standard of 11 review when considering legal questions concerning the interpretation of Supreme 12 Court rules and the district court’s application of the law to the facts of this case. 13 State v. Foster, 2003-NMCA-099 , ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 224 , 75 P.3d 824 . 14 The law regarding the six-month rule has been in flux while this case was 15 pending. | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Dominguezgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Baca v. LOS LUNAS COMMUNITY PROGRAMSgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Duranyellow | 2 | 3 |
| Mark V, Inc. v. Mellekasgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Grisham v. Reebgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Jacob v. Spurlingreen | 2 | 2 |
Cordova v. World Finance Corp. of NMgreen2 sentences2024Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 11 , 146 N.M. 256 , 208 P.3d 901 (“We apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. 2024Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 11 , 146 N.M. 256 , 208 P.3d 901 (“We apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. | 1 | 22 |
Peavy v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.green2 sentences2025To evaluate these claims of 18 error, “[w]e apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion 19 to compel arbitration.” Peavy v. Skilled Healthcare Grp., Inc., 2020-NMSC-010, ¶ 9 , 20 470 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025To evaluate these claims of 18 error, “[w]e apply a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a motion 19 to compel arbitration.” Peavy v. Skilled Healthcare Grp., Inc., 2020-NMSC-010, ¶ 9 , 20 470 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 9 |
City of Albuquerque Ex Rel. Albuquerque Police Department v. One (1) 1984 White Chevy Ut., VIN 1G8CS18BXE8176575, New Mexico License No. 335-KRHgreen2 sentences2018The 3 1 City appeals from the district court’s judgment denying forfeiture of Claimant’s 2 vehicle. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Standard of Review 5 {4} “When there are no disputed material facts, an appellate court reviews all issues 6 on appeal under a de novo standard of review.” City of Albuquerque v. One (1) 1984 7 White Chevy Ut., 2002-NMSC-014, ¶ 5 , 132 N.M. 187 , 46 P.3d 94 . 2018The 3 1 City appeals from the district court’s judgment denying forfeiture of Claimant’s 2 vehicle. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Standard of Review 5 {4} “When there are no disputed material facts, an appellate court reviews all issues 6 on appeal under a de novo standard of review.” City of Albuquerque v. One (1) 1984 7 White Chevy Ut., 2002-NMSC-014, ¶ 5 , 132 N.M. 187 , 46 P.3d 94 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2022See State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-111, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 705 , 191 P.3d 563 (“We generally apply a de novo standard of review to the constitutional question of whether there has been a double jeopardy violation.”). {4} As relevant here, the double jeopardy clause protects defendants from receiving “multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 23 , 306 P.3d 426 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021See State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-111, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 705 , 191 P.3d 563 (“We generally apply a de novo standard of review to the constitutional question of whether there has been a double jeopardy violation.”). {7} The double jeopardy clause “has been held to incorporate a broad and general collection of protections against several conceptually separate kinds of harm: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 23 , 306 P.3d 426 | 1 | 5 |
State v. Salazargreen2 sentences2024State v. Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 49 , 123 N.M. 778 , 945 P.2d 996 . 2024State v. Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 49 , 123 N.M. 778 , 945 P.2d 996 . | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 4 |
| Terry v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 4 |
| In Re Shon Daniel K.green | 1 | 4 |
| Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLCgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Baker v. Endeavor Servs.green | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Meadorsgreen | 1 | 3 |
| N.M. Corrections Dep't v. AFSCMEgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Redhousegreen | 1 | 3 |
| 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. Patterson
green
2 sentences2013We “review the application of the law to these 9 facts, including determinations of reasonable suspicion, under a de novo standard of 10 review.” State v. Patterson, 2006-NMCA-037, ¶ 13 , 139 N.M. 322 , 131 P.3d 1286 . 11 “[A]n officer may detain a person in order to investigate possible criminal 12 activity.” Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 20 (internal quotation marks and citation 13 omitted). 2013We “review the application of the law to these 9 facts, including determinations of reasonable suspicion, under a de novo standard of 10 review.” State v. Patterson, 2006-NMCA-037, ¶ 13 , 139 N.M. 322 , 131 P.3d 1286 . 11 “[A]n officer may detain a person in order to investigate possible criminal 12 activity.” Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 20 (internal quotation marks and citation 13 omitted). | 14 | 2007–2013 |
State v. Munoz
green
2 sentences2025“We review the propriety of a district court’s refusal to instruct on a lesser[ ]included offense under a de novo standard.” State v. Munoz, 2004- NMCA-103, ¶ 10, 136 N.M. 235 , 96 P.3d 796 . 2025“We review the propriety of a district court’s refusal to instruct on a lesser[ ]included offense under a de novo standard.” State v. Munoz, 2004- NMCA-103, ¶ 10, 136 N.M. 235 , 96 P.3d 796 . | 7 | 2019–2025 |
Jones v. Schoellkopf
green
2 sentences2025“To the extent that [a party] contends that there are errors of law in the [district] court’s conclusions or in those findings that function as conclusions, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Jones v. Schoellkopf, 2005-NMCA-124, ¶ 8 , 138 N.M. 477 , 122 P.3d 844 . {8} “[I]n order to challenge the [district] court’s findings of fact as not supported by substantial evidence, [the appellant] must clearly indicate the findings that it wishes to challenge and must provide this Court with a summary of all the evidence bearing on the finding.” Aspen Landscaping, Inc. v. Longford Homes of N.M., I 2025“To the extent that [a party] contends that there are errors of law in the [district] court’s conclusions or in those findings that function as conclusions, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Jones v. Schoellkopf, 2005-NMCA-124, ¶ 8 , 138 N.M. 477 , 122 P.3d 844 . {8} “[I]n order to challenge the [district] court’s findings of fact as not supported by substantial evidence, [the appellant] must clearly indicate the findings that it wishes to challenge and must provide this Court with a summary of all the evidence bearing on the finding.” Aspen Landscaping, Inc. v. Longford Homes of N.M., I | 6 | 2017–2025 |
Corrections Corp. of America of Tennessee, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences2022Corp. of Am. v. State, 2007-NMCA-148, ¶ 17 , 142 N.M. 779 , 170 P.3d 1017 ; see NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17(C) (2007) (“Any assessment of taxes or demand for payment made by the department is presumed to be correct.”). {7} The Act imposes an excise tax equal to five and one-eighth percent of gross receipts upon any person engaging in business in New Mexico. 2022Corp. of Am. v. State, 2007-NMCA-148, ¶ 17 , 142 N.M. 779 , 170 P.3d 1017 ; see NMSA 1978, § 7-1-17(C) (2007) (“Any assessment of taxes or demand for payment made by the department is presumed to be correct.”). {7} The Act imposes an excise tax equal to five and one-eighth percent of gross receipts upon any person engaging in business in New Mexico. | 6 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2010“Thus, the 5 magistrate must have sufficient facts upon which to conclude that there is a reasonable 6 probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.” Id. 7 “In reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit submitted in support of the 8 issuance of a search warrant, we apply a de novo standard of review.” State v. 9 Whitley, 1999-NMCA-155 , ¶ 3, 128 N.M. 403 , 993 P.2d 117 (internal quotation marks 10 and citation omitted). 2010“Thus, the 5 magistrate must have sufficient facts upon which to conclude that there is a reasonable 6 probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.” Id. 7 “In reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit submitted in support of the 8 issuance of a search warrant, we apply a de novo standard of review.” State v. 9 Whitley, 1999-NMCA-155 , ¶ 3, 128 N.M. 403 , 993 P.2d 117 (internal quotation marks 10 and citation omitted). | 6 | 2001–2010 |
State v. Heinsen
green
2 sentences2014State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMCA-088, ¶ 3 , 150 N.M. 505 , 263 P.3d 282 (“‘We review jurisdictional issues . . . under a de novo standard of review.’” (quoting State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 6 , 138 N.M. 441 , 121 P.3d 1040 )); see State v. Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 11 , 146 N.M. 251 , 208 P.3d 896 (“Questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction are questions of law which are subject to de novo review.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2014State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMCA-088, ¶ 3 , 150 N.M. 505 , 263 P.3d 282 (“‘We review jurisdictional issues . . . under a de novo standard of review.’” (quoting State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 6 , 138 N.M. 441 , 121 P.3d 1040 )); see State v. Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 11 , 146 N.M. 251 , 208 P.3d 896 (“Questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction are questions of law which are subject to de novo review.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 5 | 2011–2014 |
City of Albuquerque v. BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014Id.; City of Albuquerque v. BPLW Architects & Eng'rs, Inc., 2009-NMCA-081, ¶ 7 , 146 N.M. 717 , 213 P.3d 1146 (holding that “if no material issues of fact are in dispute and an appeal presents only a question of law, we apply de novo review”). {6} In addition, we review the district court’s interpretation of the TCA as a question of law subject to de novo review. 2014Id.; City of Albuquerque v. BPLW Architects & Eng'rs, Inc., 2009-NMCA-081, ¶ 7 , 146 N.M. 717 , 213 P.3d 1146 (holding that “if no material issues of fact are in dispute and an appeal presents only a question of law, we apply de novo review”). {6} In addition, we review the district court’s interpretation of the TCA as a question of law subject to de novo review. | 5 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Henley
green
2 sentences2025“We review the propriety of a district court’s refusal to instruct on a lesser[ ]included offense under a de novo standard.” State v. Munoz, 2004-NMCA-103, ¶ 10 , 136 N.M. 235 , 96 P.3d 796 . “[W]e . . . review the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the giving of the requested instruction.” State v. Henley, 2010-NMSC- 039, ¶ 25, 148 N.M. 359 , 237 P.3d 103 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {3} When a defendant requests a lesser included offense instruction, we use the cognate approach endorsed by our Supreme Court in State v. Meadors, 1995-NMSC- 073, 121 N.M. 38 , 2025“We review the propriety of a district court’s refusal to instruct on a lesser[ ]included offense under a de novo standard.” State v. Munoz, 2004-NMCA-103, ¶ 10 , 136 N.M. 235 , 96 P.3d 796 . “[W]e . . . review the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the giving of the requested instruction.” State v. Henley, 2010-NMSC- 039, ¶ 25, 148 N.M. 359 , 237 P.3d 103 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {3} When a defendant requests a lesser included offense instruction, we use the cognate approach endorsed by our Supreme Court in State v. Meadors, 1995-NMSC- 073, 121 N.M. 38 , | 4 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Massengill
green
2 sentences2021“We apply a de novo standard of review as to the constitutional issues related to [the d]efendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.” State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 5 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 . {24} Whether the admission of the Facebook messages violated Defendant’s right of confrontation depends on whether the messages were testimonial, as “only testimonial statements cause the declarant to be a witness within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.” Aragon, 2010-NMSC-008, ¶ 6 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021“We apply a de novo standard of review as to the constitutional issues related to [the d]efendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.” State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 5 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 . {24} Whether the admission of the Facebook messages violated Defendant’s right of confrontation depends on whether the messages were testimonial, as “only testimonial statements cause the declarant to be a witness within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.” Aragon, 2010-NMSC-008, ¶ 6 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 4 | 2009–2021 |
Self v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013This appeal timely followed. 2 DISCUSSION Standard of Review {5} “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6 , 126 N.M. 396 , 970 P.2d 582 .We review the grant of summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. 2013This appeal timely followed. 2 DISCUSSION Standard of Review {5} “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6 , 126 N.M. 396 , 970 P.2d 582 .We review the grant of summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. | 4 | 2008–2013 |
| Romero v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. green | 3 | 2018–2025 |
| State v. Gutierrez green | 3 | 2014–2018 |
| Stennis v. City of Santa Fe green | 3 | 2010–2018 |
| Rutherford v. Chaves County green | 3 | 2010–2017 |
| Hall v. Carlsbad Supermarket/IGA green | 3 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Gonzales green | 3 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Lopez green | 3 | 2011–2012 |
| Fikes v. Furst green | 3 | 2008–2010 |
| Apodaca v. AAA Gas Co. green | 3 | 2005–2007 |
| State v. Steinzig green | 3 | 2001–2003 |
| State v. Baroz green | 2 | 2023–2026 |
| Baker v. Endeavor Servs., Inc. green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Darkis green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Department Ex Rel. City of Santa Fe green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Lymon green | 2 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Trejo green | 2 | 2023–2023 |
| Laughlin v. Convenient Mgmt. Servs., Inc. green | 2 | 2018–2023 |
| Quantum Corp. v. State Taxation & Revenue Department green | 2 | 2019–2022 |
| State v. White green | 2 | 2022–2022 |
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.