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.
12 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. JASON F.green2 sentences2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). 2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). | 4 | 8 |
State v. JOANNA V.green2 sentences2024See State v. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 232 , 75 P.3d 832 , aff’d, 2004-NMSC-024 , 136 N.M. 40 , 94 P.3d 783 (declining to review an issue on appeal where the issue was not preserved below and where counsel failed to argue any exception regarding the general public interest, fundamental error, or fundamental rights); State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 135 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). {11} Defendant also argues that the evidence 2024See State v. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 232 , 75 P.3d 832 , aff’d, 2004-NMSC-024 , 136 N.M. 40 , 94 P.3d 783 (declining to review an issue on appeal where the issue was not preserved below and where counsel failed to argue any exception regarding the general public interest, fundamental error, or fundamental rights); State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 135 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). {11} Defendant also argues that the evidence | 3 | 3 |
State v. JOANNA V.green2 sentences2024See State v. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 232 , 75 P.3d 832 , aff’d, 2004-NMSC-024 , 136 N.M. 40 , 94 P.3d 783 (declining to review an issue on appeal where the issue was not preserved below and where counsel failed to argue any exception regarding the general public interest, fundamental error, or fundamental rights); State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 135 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). {11} Defendant also argues that the evidence 2024See State v. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 232 , 75 P.3d 832 , aff’d, 2004-NMSC-024 , 136 N.M. 40 , 94 P.3d 783 (declining to review an issue on appeal where the issue was not preserved below and where counsel failed to argue any exception regarding the general public interest, fundamental error, or fundamental rights); State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 135 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). {11} Defendant also argues that the evidence | 3 | 3 |
State v. an Xuan Nguyengreen2 sentences2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). 2026See State v. Nyugen, 2008-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 22-23 , 144 N.M. 197 , 185 P.3d 368 (refusing to address a claim of error on appeal under principles of preservation and the doctrine of invited error where the defendant did not raise the claim of error in district court and even agreed to proceed under the circumstances to which he claimed error on appeal); cf. State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC- 010, ¶ 10, 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2021See State v. Abril, 2003-NMCA-111, ¶ 14 , 134 N.M. 326 , 76 P.3d 644 (explaining that because plain error is broader than fundamental error and constitutes an “exercise of remedial discretion,” it must be briefed by the appellant to justify our discretion to redress the unpreserved error (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torres, 2012-NMCA-026, ¶ 38 , 272 P.3d 689 ; see also State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (refusing to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regardi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Abrilgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Abril, 2003-NMCA-111, ¶ 14 , 134 N.M. 326 , 76 P.3d 644 (explaining that because plain error is broader than fundamental error and constitutes an “exercise of remedial discretion,” it must be briefed by the appellant to justify our discretion to redress the unpreserved error (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torres, 2012-NMCA-026, ¶ 38 , 272 P.3d 689 ; see also State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (refusing to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regardi 2021See State v. Abril, 2003-NMCA-111, ¶ 14 , 134 N.M. 326 , 76 P.3d 644 (explaining that because plain error is broader than fundamental error and constitutes an “exercise of remedial discretion,” it must be briefed by the appellant to justify our discretion to redress the unpreserved error (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torres, 2012-NMCA-026, ¶ 38 , 272 P.3d 689 ; see also State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 125 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (refusing to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regardi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2011See Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006 , ¶ 31 n. 4, 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (noting the possibility of appellate courts considering unpreserved state constitutional claims under the exceptions to preservation requirements contained in Rule 12 — 216(B)). 9 . 2011See Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006 , ¶ 31 n. 4, 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (noting the possibility of appellate courts considering unpreserved state constitutional claims under the exceptions to preservation requirements contained in Rule 12 — 216(B)). 9 . | 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. Roybal
green
2 sentences2024See State v. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 232 , 75 P.3d 832 , aff’d, 2004-NMSC-024 , 136 N.M. 40 , 94 P.3d 783 (declining to review an issue on appeal where the issue was not preserved below and where counsel failed to argue any exception regarding the general public interest, fundamental error, or fundamental rights); State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 135 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). {11} Defendant also argues that the evidence 2024See State v. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 232 , 75 P.3d 832 , aff’d, 2004-NMSC-024 , 136 N.M. 40 , 94 P.3d 783 (declining to review an issue on appeal where the issue was not preserved below and where counsel failed to argue any exception regarding the general public interest, fundamental error, or fundamental rights); State v. Jason F., 1998-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 , 135 N.M. 111 , 957 P.2d 1145 (declining to review a party’s unpreserved argument when counsel made no argument on appeal regarding the exceptions to the preservation requirement). {11} Defendant also argues that the evidence | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Moody v. Stribling
green
2 sentences2026See Rule 12-321 NMRA; Moody v. Stribling, 1999-NMCA-094, ¶ 45 , 127 N.M. 630 , 985 P.2d 1210 (“Due process claims are not exempt from the fundamental requirement of preservation.”). 2026See Rule 12-321 NMRA; Moody v. Stribling, 1999-NMCA-094, ¶ 45 , 127 N.M. 630 , 985 P.2d 1210 (“Due process claims are not exempt from the fundamental requirement of preservation.”). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Matter of Adoption of Doe
green
2 sentences2024However, the Lujans cite no supporting authority, see In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 , and we see nothing in the rule itself that imposes such a requirement. 2024However, the Lujans cite no supporting authority, see In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 , and we see nothing in the rule itself that imposes such a requirement. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Cumpton
green
2 sentences2023As this Court has stated, “[t]he opportunity for a district court to mitigate a sentence depends solely on the discretion of the court and on no entitlement derived from any qualities of the defendant.” State v. Cumpton, 2000- NMCA-033, ¶ 12, 129 N.M. 47 , 1 P.3d 429 . 2023As this Court has stated, “[t]he opportunity for a district court to mitigate a sentence depends solely on the discretion of the court and on no entitlement derived from any qualities of the defendant.” State v. Cumpton, 2000- NMCA-033, ¶ 12, 129 N.M. 47 , 1 P.3d 429 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Pacheco
green
2 sentences2007However, as the Court of Appeals noted, Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 737 , 126 P.3d 553 , New Mexico case law holds that an unauthorized presence in the jury room gives rise to a presumption of prejudice which the State may rebut. 2007However, as the Court of Appeals noted, Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 737 , 126 P.3d 553 , New Mexico case law holds that an unauthorized presence in the jury room gives rise to a presumption of prejudice which the State may rebut. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.