comity analysis in New Mexico

11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Watson v. Blakelygreen nmctapp · 1987 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1997–2012 2 sentences 1997In Watson v. Blakely, 106 N.M. 687, 690 , 748 P.2d 984, 987 (Ct.App.1987), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102 Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 239 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1041 (1992), the Court said: Under the doctrine of comity, state courts recognize foreign judgments where the proceedings on which the judgment is based are not contrary to the public policy of the forum, where the judgment sought to be recognized was rendered under circumstances wherein the foreign court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and where the parties were given an opportunity for a full 1997In Watson v. Blakely, 106 N.M. 687, 690 , 748 P.2d 984, 987 (Ct.App.1987), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102 Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 239 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1041 (1992), the Court said: Under the doctrine of comity, state courts recognize foreign judgments where the proceedings on which the judgment is based are not contrary to the public policy of the forum, where the judgment sought to be recognized was rendered under circumstances wherein the foreign court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and where the parties were given an opportunity for a full	4	4
Sam v. Estate of Samgreen nm · 2006 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2015–2017 2 sentences 2015In doing so, we “review the district court’s decision to use a comity analysis de novo, and then review a district court’s application of comity for abuse of discretion.” Sam v. Sam, 2006-NMSC-022, ¶ 9 , 139 N.M. 474 , 134 P.3d 761 . 2015In doing so, we “review the district court’s decision to use a comity analysis de novo, and then review a district court’s application of comity for abuse of discretion.” Sam v. Sam, 2006-NMSC-022, ¶ 9 , 139 N.M. 474 , 134 P.3d 761 .	2	4
Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnisongreen nm · 1992 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1997–2012 2 sentences 1997In Watson v. Blakely, 106 N.M. 687, 690 , 748 P.2d 984, 987 (Ct.App.1987), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102 Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 239 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1041 (1992), the Court said: Under the doctrine of comity, state courts recognize foreign judgments where the proceedings on which the judgment is based are not contrary to the public policy of the forum, where the judgment sought to be recognized was rendered under circumstances wherein the foreign court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and where the parties were given an opportunity for a full 1997In Watson v. Blakely, 106 N.M. 687, 690 , 748 P.2d 984, 987 (Ct.App.1987), overruled on other grounds by Kelly Inn No. 102 Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 239 , 824 P.2d 1033, 1041 (1992), the Court said: Under the doctrine of comity, state courts recognize foreign judgments where the proceedings on which the judgment is based are not contrary to the public policy of the forum, where the judgment sought to be recognized was rendered under circumstances wherein the foreign court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and where the parties were given an opportunity for a full	2	4
City of Raton v. Arkansas River Power Authoritygreen nmd · 2008 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015River Power Auth., 611 F. Supp. 2d 1190 , 1212 17 (D.N.M. 2008) (discussing the Sam holding and concluding that a “case-by-case 18 approach to the comity analysis” is required). 2015River Power Auth., 611 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1212 (D.N.M. 2008) (discussing the Sam holding and concluding that a “case-by-case approach to the comity analysis” is required).	2	2
Heimann v. Adeegreen nm · 1996 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012See id. (stating “it would be inappropriate to have a district court reviewing proceedings ordered by another district court . . . [and s]uch review should come, if at all, from an appropriate appellate court”). {14} These two cases articulate aprinciple of deference, much akin to the doctrine of comity, 1 that district courts should exercise in deciding whether to entertain a suit that may interfere with another court’s jurisdiction over the same parties and issues.	1	1
HIGH BIDGE HINKLE JT. VENT. v. Albuquerquegreen nmctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 29, 39-40 , 888 P.2d 475, 485-86 (Ct.App.1994) (suggesting that remand to an administrative agency, and deference to the agency, is warranted when the agency’s knowledge and expertise play a role in the decision-making process); cf. McDowell v. Napolitano, 119 N.M. 696, 700 , 895 P.2d 218, 222 (1995) (recognizing that, under the doctrine of comity, a “court may choose to defer to the administrative agency where the interests of justice are best served by permitting the agency to resolve factual issues within its peculiar expe 2006See High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 29, 39-40 , 888 P.2d 475, 485-86 (Ct.App.1994) (suggesting that remand to an administrative agency, and deference to the agency, is warranted when the agency’s knowledge and expertise play a role in the decision-making process); cf. McDowell v. Napolitano, 119 N.M. 696, 700 , 895 P.2d 218, 222 (1995) (recognizing that, under the doctrine of comity, a “court may choose to defer to the administrative agency where the interests of justice are best served by permitting the agency to resolve factual issues within its peculiar expe	1	1
Maralex Resources, Inc. v. Gilbreathgreen nm · 2003 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Maralex Res., Inc. v. Gilbreath, 2003-NMSC-023, ¶ 13 , 134 N.M. 308 , 76 P.3d 626 . “[A]n appellate court ‘will affirm the district court if it is right for any reason and if affirmance is not unfair to the appellant.”’ Id. (quoting Moffat v. Branch, 2002-NMCA-067, ¶ 13 , 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 ). {12} There is no clear indication that the trial court analyzed this case under the principles of comity. 2006See Maralex Res., Inc. v. Gilbreath, 2003-NMSC-023, ¶ 13 , 134 N.M. 308 , 76 P.3d 626 . “[A]n appellate court ‘will affirm the district court if it is right for any reason and if affirmance is not unfair to the appellant.”’ Id. (quoting Moffat v. Branch, 2002-NMCA-067, ¶ 13 , 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 ). {12} There is no clear indication that the trial court analyzed this case under the principles of comity.	1	1
Leszinske v. Poolegreen nmctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006“Comity refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of eases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states.” Leszinske v. Poole, 110 N.M. 663, 668 , 798 P.2d 1049, 1054 (N.M.Ct.App.1990) (quoting Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522 , 543 n. 27, 107 S.Ct. 2542 , 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987)). 2006“Comity refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of eases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states.” Leszinske v. Poole, 110 N.M. 663, 668 , 798 P.2d 1049, 1054 (N.M.Ct.App.1990) (quoting Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522 , 543 n. 27, 107 S.Ct. 2542 , 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987)).	1	1
McDowell v. Napolitanogreen nm · 1995 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 29, 39-40 , 888 P.2d 475, 485-86 (Ct.App.1994) (suggesting that remand to an administrative agency, and deference to the agency, is warranted when the agency’s knowledge and expertise play a role in the decision-making process); cf. McDowell v. Napolitano, 119 N.M. 696, 700 , 895 P.2d 218, 222 (1995) (recognizing that, under the doctrine of comity, a “court may choose to defer to the administrative agency where the interests of justice are best served by permitting the agency to resolve factual issues within its peculiar expe 2006See High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 29, 39-40 , 888 P.2d 475, 485-86 (Ct.App.1994) (suggesting that remand to an administrative agency, and deference to the agency, is warranted when the agency’s knowledge and expertise play a role in the decision-making process); cf. McDowell v. Napolitano, 119 N.M. 696, 700 , 895 P.2d 218, 222 (1995) (recognizing that, under the doctrine of comity, a “court may choose to defer to the administrative agency where the interests of justice are best served by permitting the agency to resolve factual issues within its peculiar expe	1	1
Moffat v. Branchgreen nmctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Maralex Res., Inc. v. Gilbreath, 2003-NMSC-023, ¶ 13 , 134 N.M. 308 , 76 P.3d 626 . “[A]n appellate court ‘will affirm the district court if it is right for any reason and if affirmance is not unfair to the appellant.”’ Id. (quoting Moffat v. Branch, 2002-NMCA-067, ¶ 13 , 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 ). {12} There is no clear indication that the trial court analyzed this case under the principles of comity. 2006See Maralex Res., Inc. v. Gilbreath, 2003-NMSC-023, ¶ 13 , 134 N.M. 308 , 76 P.3d 626 . “[A]n appellate court ‘will affirm the district court if it is right for any reason and if affirmance is not unfair to the appellant.”’ Id. (quoting Moffat v. Branch, 2002-NMCA-067, ¶ 13 , 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 ). {12} There is no clear indication that the trial court analyzed this case under the principles of comity.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Matter of Estate of Gilmore green nmctapp · 1997 1 sentence 2015See Torres, 1995-NMSC-025 ; Terrazas, 2006-NMCA-111 ; In re Estate of Gilmore, 1997-NMCA-103 . {48} Ms. Montaño buys in to the confusing and erroneous application of the place-of-the-wrong rule.	1	2015–2015
Terrazas v. Garland & Loman, Inc. green nmctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2015See Torres, 1995-NMSC-025 ; Terrazas, 2006-NMCA-111 ; In re Estate of Gilmore, 1997-NMCA-103 . {48} Ms. Montaño buys in to the confusing and erroneous application of the place-of-the-wrong rule.	1	2015–2015
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt green scotus · 2003 2 sentences 2006We will review the appropriateness of a district court’s decision to engage in a comity analysis de novo, but will review the district court’s fact-intensive comity analysis for abuse of discretion. {13} The seminal cases dealing with when and how a forum state should extend immunity under comity to a sister state sued in its courts are Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), and Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 , 123 S.Ct. 1683 , 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003). 2006We will review the appropriateness of a district court’s decision to engage in a comity analysis de novo, but will review the district court’s fact-intensive comity analysis for abuse of discretion. {13} The seminal cases dealing with when and how a forum state should extend immunity under comity to a sister state sued in its courts are Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), and Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 , 123 S.Ct. 1683 , 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003).	1	2006–2006
Nevada v. Hall red scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2006We will review the appropriateness of a district court’s decision to engage in a comity analysis de novo, but will review the district court’s fact-intensive comity analysis for abuse of discretion. {13} The seminal cases dealing with when and how a forum state should extend immunity under comity to a sister state sued in its courts are Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), and Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 , 123 S.Ct. 1683 , 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003). 2006We will review the appropriateness of a district court’s decision to engage in a comity analysis de novo, but will review the district court’s fact-intensive comity analysis for abuse of discretion. {13} The seminal cases dealing with when and how a forum state should extend immunity under comity to a sister state sued in its courts are Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), and Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 , 123 S.Ct. 1683 , 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003).	1	2006–2006
Societe Nat. Ind. Aero. v. US Dist. Court green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 2006“Comity refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of eases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states.” Leszinske v. Poole, 110 N.M. 663, 668 , 798 P.2d 1049, 1054 (N.M.Ct.App.1990) (quoting Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522 , 543 n. 27, 107 S.Ct. 2542 , 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987)). 2006“Comity refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of eases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states.” Leszinske v. Poole, 110 N.M. 663, 668 , 798 P.2d 1049, 1054 (N.M.Ct.App.1990) (quoting Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522 , 543 n. 27, 107 S.Ct. 2542 , 96 L.Ed.2d 461 (1987)).	1	2006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 41-4-1 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 41-4-2 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 41-4-4 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 37-1-8 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 41-4-16 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 67 (1890–2026) TX 40 (1911–2024) CA 28 (1923–2025) IL 22 (1934–2024) MD 14 (1934–2020) WI 14 (1950–2025) WA 14 (1981–2020) NM 11 (1997–2017) MO 10 (1906–2025) NJ 9 (1952–2026) FL 9 (1959–2025) CT 8 (1974–2019) CO 7 (1911–2019) SD 7 (1985–2024) VA 7 (1979–1997) OK 6 (1914–2008) IN 6 (1993–2013) OH 5 (1907–2012) KS 5 (1949–2021) ND 4 (1903–1990) DE 4 (2010–2018) AL 4 (1980–2009) PA 4 (1786–1937) UT 4 (1993–2019) MS 4 (1930–1997) MI 3 (1895–2017) NE 3 (1913–1951) AK 3 (1999–2025) AZ 3 (1939–2006) ME 3 (1982–2018) TN 3 (1932–2019) HI 3 (2007–2016) MN 3 (1903–2019) GA 2 (1902–1990) LA 2 (1989–2008) VT 2 (2005–2025) WY 2 (1925–1982) MA 2 (2009–2010) NV 2 (2014–2020) NH 2 (1998–2006) NC 2 (1982–2001) KY 2 (1913–2013) IA 2 (1942–2016) WV 2 (1928–2001) AR 2 (1932–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check