damages hearing in New Mexico

11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2025 2 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co.green nmctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions for the first time on appeal.”); see also Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 2023-NMCA-008 , ¶ 61, 523 P.3d 624 (declining to consider jury instruction error asserted on appeal where the record lacks evidence of the objections made to the final instruction and the reasons the district court settled on the instructions submitted to the jury). 2025See Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions for the first time on appeal.”); see also Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 2023-NMCA-008 , ¶ 61, 523 P.3d 624 (declining to consider jury instruction error asserted on appeal where the record lacks evidence of the objections made to the final instruction and the reasons the district court settled on the instructions submitted to the jury).	1	1
Ulibarri v. Jesionowskigreen nmctapp · 2022 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions for the first time on appeal.”); see also Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 2023-NMCA-008 , ¶ 61, 523 P.3d 624 (declining to consider jury instruction error asserted on appeal where the record lacks evidence of the objections made to the final instruction and the reasons the district court settled on the instructions submitted to the jury).	1	1
John Corp. v. City of Houstongreen ca5 · 2000 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Id. at 186-87, 194 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 ; see also John Corp. v. City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573, 583-85 (5th Cir.2000) (discussing the manner in which the Williamson County finality requirements have been applied in the federal circuit courts in relation to due process and equal protection claims). {11} Under Williamson County, a state’s procedure, where a local authority’s decision is merely reviewed on appeal, does not affect the finality of the decision for the purpose of a federal court claim because such a procedure only permits a determination as to whether the local authority erred; it is me	1	1
Jordan v. Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc.green nm · 1984 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987This Court also has held that the due process clause of our constitution requires notice of default judgment proceedings pursuant to Rule 1-055(B) “when matters [stand] at issue.” Adams & McGahey v. Neill, 58 N.M. 782, 786 , 276 P.2d 913, 916 (1954), quoted in Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 102 N.M. 162, 164 , 692 P.2d 1311, 1313 (1984); see N.M. 1987This Court also has held that the due process clause of our constitution requires notice of default judgment proceedings pursuant to Rule 1-055(B) “when matters [stand] at issue.” Adams & McGahey v. Neill, 58 N.M. 782, 786 , 276 P.2d 913, 916 (1954), quoted in Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 102 N.M. 162, 164 , 692 P.2d 1311, 1313 (1984); see N.M.	1	1
Board of County Com'rs of Sierra County v. Boydgreen nm · 1962 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987Although Rule 1-055(B) does not by its terms require written notice of such a hearing to the party against whom default judgment is sought, we believe that the damages hearing must be regarded as a hearing on the application for default judgment and that written notice must be given if the party “has appeared in the action.” Cf. Board of County Comm’rs v. Boyd, 70 N.M. at 257-58 , 372 P.2d at 830 (hearing on compensation in eminent domain proceeding); see generally Annotation, Defaulting Defendant’s Right to Notice and Hearing as to Determination of Amount of Damages, 15 A.L. 1987Although Rule 1-055(B) does not by its terms require written notice of such a hearing to the party against whom default judgment is sought, we believe that the damages hearing must be regarded as a hearing on the application for default judgment and that written notice must be given if the party “has appeared in the action.” Cf. Board of County Comm’rs v. Boyd, 70 N.M. at 257-58 , 372 P.2d at 830 (hearing on compensation in eminent domain proceeding); see generally Annotation, Defaulting Defendant’s Right to Notice and Hearing as to Determination of Amount of Damages, 15 A.L.	1	1
Adams & McGahey v. Neillgreen nm · 1954 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987This Court also has held that the due process clause of our constitution requires notice of default judgment proceedings pursuant to Rule 1-055(B) “when matters [stand] at issue.” Adams & McGahey v. Neill, 58 N.M. 782, 786 , 276 P.2d 913, 916 (1954), quoted in Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 102 N.M. 162, 164 , 692 P.2d 1311, 1313 (1984); see N.M. 1987This Court also has held that the due process clause of our constitution requires notice of default judgment proceedings pursuant to Rule 1-055(B) “when matters [stand] at issue.” Adams & McGahey v. Neill, 58 N.M. 782, 786 , 276 P.2d 913, 916 (1954), quoted in Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 102 N.M. 162, 164 , 692 P.2d 1311, 1313 (1984); see N.M.	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 (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Gallegos Ex Rel. Estate of Gallegos v. Franklin green nmctapp · 1976 2 sentences 2015Co., 3 1997-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 23-24 , 123 N.M. 1 , 933 P.2d 210 ; Gallegos v. Franklin, 4 1976-NMCA-019 , ¶ 36, 89 N.M. 118 , 547 P.2d 1160 , and those allegations 5 established that the Bank was the holder of the note, the Bank had satisfied its burden 6 under Bank of New York v. Romero and Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Beneficial 7 New Mexico Inc., 2014-NMCA-090 , 335 P.3d 217 , cert. granted 2014-NMCERT-008 8 (No. 34,726, August 29, 2014). 9 {3} In response, Homeowners ask this Court to treat the issue of standing in this 10 case in the same manner that our Supreme Court treated comparative n 2015Co., 3 1997-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 23-24 , 123 N.M. 1 , 933 P.2d 210 ; Gallegos v. Franklin, 4 1976-NMCA-019 , ¶ 36, 89 N.M. 118 , 547 P.2d 1160 , and those allegations 5 established that the Bank was the holder of the note, the Bank had satisfied its burden 6 under Bank of New York v. Romero and Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Beneficial 7 New Mexico Inc., 2014-NMCA-090 , 335 P.3d 217 , cert. granted 2014-NMCERT-008 8 (No. 34,726, August 29, 2014). 9 {3} In response, Homeowners ask this Court to treat the issue of standing in this 10 case in the same manner that our Supreme Court treated comparative n	2	2015–2023
Alami v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. green ny · 2002 2 sentences 2015Id. 2015Id.	2	2015–2015
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Beneficial New Mexico Inc. green nmctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2015Co., 3 1997-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 23-24 , 123 N.M. 1 , 933 P.2d 210 ; Gallegos v. Franklin, 4 1976-NMCA-019 , ¶ 36, 89 N.M. 118 , 547 P.2d 1160 , and those allegations 5 established that the Bank was the holder of the note, the Bank had satisfied its burden 6 under Bank of New York v. Romero and Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Beneficial 7 New Mexico Inc., 2014-NMCA-090 , 335 P.3d 217 , cert. granted 2014-NMCERT-008 8 (No. 34,726, August 29, 2014). 9 {3} In response, Homeowners ask this Court to treat the issue of standing in this 10 case in the same manner that our Supreme Court treated comparative n	1	2015–2015
Burge v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. green nm · 1996 2 sentences 2015Co., 3 1997-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 23-24 , 123 N.M. 1 , 933 P.2d 210 ; Gallegos v. Franklin, 4 1976-NMCA-019 , ¶ 36, 89 N.M. 118 , 547 P.2d 1160 , and those allegations 5 established that the Bank was the holder of the note, the Bank had satisfied its burden 6 under Bank of New York v. Romero and Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Beneficial 7 New Mexico Inc., 2014-NMCA-090 , 335 P.3d 217 , cert. granted 2014-NMCERT-008 8 (No. 34,726, August 29, 2014). 9 {3} In response, Homeowners ask this Court to treat the issue of standing in this 10 case in the same manner that our Supreme Court treated comparative n 2015Co., 3 1997-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 23-24 , 123 N.M. 1 , 933 P.2d 210 ; Gallegos v. Franklin, 4 1976-NMCA-019 , ¶ 36, 89 N.M. 118 , 547 P.2d 1160 , and those allegations 5 established that the Bank was the holder of the note, the Bank had satisfied its burden 6 under Bank of New York v. Romero and Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Beneficial 7 New Mexico Inc., 2014-NMCA-090 , 335 P.3d 217 , cert. granted 2014-NMCERT-008 8 (No. 34,726, August 29, 2014). 9 {3} In response, Homeowners ask this Court to treat the issue of standing in this 10 case in the same manner that our Supreme Court treated comparative n	1	2015–2015
United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co. green nm · 1980 2 sentences 2015Although it is not entirely clear whether the default judgment in that case was based on the defendants’ failure to answer or to comply with the discovery rules, because both Rule 1-037 and Rule 1-055 are cited, the clear implication of Gallegos is that Rule 1 - 055(B) applies to default judgments entered as a discovery sanction. {22} To the extent the district court relied on the United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co. Court’s statement that “[t]here is no requirement under Rule [1 -037(B)] that an evidentiary hearing be held before sanctions are imposed” to reject Defendants’ argument tha 2015Although it is not entirely clear whether the default judgment in that case was based on the defendants’ failure to answer or to comply with the discovery rules, because both Rule 1-037 and Rule 1-055 are cited, the clear implication of Gallegos is that Rule 1 - 055(B) applies to default judgments entered as a discovery sanction. {22} To the extent the district court relied on the United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co. Court’s statement that “[t]here is no requirement under Rule [1 -037(B)] that an evidentiary hearing be held before sanctions are imposed” to reject Defendants’ argument tha	1	2015–2015
Miller v. Bank of America, N.A. green nmctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2015Miller, 2014-NMCA-053 , ¶ 11. {40} In challenged finding number six, the district court found that “prior to the [district c]ourt’s . . . 2003 . . . ruling on CYFD’s proposed change in placements, there continued to be viable prospects for reconciliation between [the Mercer-Smiths] and their daughters.” Dr. Glass was admitted as an expert in psychology at the placement hearing and also testified later at the damages hearing.	1	2015–2015
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City red scotus · 1985 1 sentence 2004Id. at 186-87, 194 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 ; see also John Corp. v. City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573, 583-85 (5th Cir.2000) (discussing the manner in which the Williamson County finality requirements have been applied in the federal circuit courts in relation to due process and equal protection claims). {11} Under Williamson County, a state’s procedure, where a local authority’s decision is merely reviewed on appeal, does not affect the finality of the decision for the purpose of a federal court claim because such a procedure only permits a determination as to whether the local authority erred; it is me	1	2004–2004
Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc. red nmctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1996We hold that a defaulting party admits only to the liability aspect of the complaint, thus reserving for the damages hearing a determination of damages in accordance with the application of comparative negligence and apportionment of damages under Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682 , 634 P.2d 1234 (1981), and Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 98 N.M. 336 , 648 P.2d 794 (1982); see also SCRA 1986, 13-2219 (comparative negligence; comparison among defendants or non-parties; general verdict) and 13-2220, Question No. 4 (comparative negligenc 1996We hold that a defaulting party admits only to the liability aspect of the complaint, thus reserving for the damages hearing a determination of damages in accordance with the application of comparative negligence and apportionment of damages under Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682 , 634 P.2d 1234 (1981), and Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 98 N.M. 336 , 648 P.2d 794 (1982); see also SCRA 1986, 13-2219 (comparative negligence; comparison among defendants or non-parties; general verdict) and 13-2220, Question No. 4 (comparative negligenc	1	1996–1996
Scott v. Rizzo red nm · 1981 2 sentences 1996We hold that a defaulting party admits only to the liability aspect of the complaint, thus reserving for the damages hearing a determination of damages in accordance with the application of comparative negligence and apportionment of damages under Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682 , 634 P.2d 1234 (1981), and Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 98 N.M. 336 , 648 P.2d 794 (1982); see also SCRA 1986, 13-2219 (comparative negligence; comparison among defendants or non-parties; general verdict) and 13-2220, Question No. 4 (comparative negligenc 1996We hold that a defaulting party admits only to the liability aspect of the complaint, thus reserving for the damages hearing a determination of damages in accordance with the application of comparative negligence and apportionment of damages under Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682 , 634 P.2d 1234 (1981), and Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152 , 646 P.2d 579 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 98 N.M. 336 , 648 P.2d 794 (1982); see also SCRA 1986, 13-2219 (comparative negligence; comparison among defendants or non-parties; general verdict) and 13-2220, Question No. 4 (comparative negligenc	1	1996–1996
Passino v. Cascade Steel Fabricators, Inc. neutral nmctapp · 1987 2 sentences 1996In Passino , the Court held that the defaulting party waived its rights to the application of comparative negligence, concluding that the defendant cannot "avoid the consequences of its default by litigating its culpability in the damages hearing." Id. at 458 , 734 P.2d at 236 . 1996In Passino , the Court held that the defaulting party waived its rights to the application of comparative negligence, concluding that the defendant cannot "avoid the consequences of its default by litigating its culpability in the damages hearing." Id. at 458 , 734 P.2d at 236 .	1	1996–1996
Scheurer v. Banner Rubber Co. green mo · 1910 2 sentences 1938In Scheurer v. Banner Rubber Co., 227 Mo. 347 , 126 S.W. 1037 , 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 1207, 21 Ann.Cas. 1110, it was decided: “Where one sustains damages from separate arid independent sources, it is the duty of the triers of fact, though the injuries may be concurrent in point of time, to separate, as'best'they can from the evidence, the amount of damages caused by defendant’s negligence, and the difficulty of separating the damages is no bar to a recovery.” In Street’s Foundations of Legal Liability, at page 64, note, it is said: “The defense of ‘act of God’ was ineffectually interposed in Nitro-P 1938In Scheurer v. Banner Rubber Co., 227 Mo. 347 , 126 S.W. 1037 , 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 1207, 21 Ann.Cas. 1110, it was decided: “Where one sustains damages from separate arid independent sources, it is the duty of the triers of fact, though the injuries may be concurrent in point of time, to separate, as'best'they can from the evidence, the amount of damages caused by defendant’s negligence, and the difficulty of separating the damages is no bar to a recovery.” In Street’s Foundations of Legal Liability, at page 64, note, it is said: “The defense of ‘act of God’ was ineffectually interposed in Nitro-P	1	1938–1938

Where else courts name it

OH 74 (1993–2026) TX 70 (1983–2026) IL 64 (1896–2025) CA 63 (1960–2026) GA 35 (1964–2025) NY 35 (1868–2026) FL 30 (1908–2026) IN 29 (1919–2025) SC 27 (1988–2026) WA 26 (1977–2026) ME 25 (1954–2024) CO 24 (1974–2026) MO 24 (1880–2025) PA 20 (1930–2025) NJ 19 (1978–2024) AZ 17 (1981–2023) KY 15 (2010–2026) LA 15 (1876–2021) MN 14 (1958–2015) UT 14 (1994–2026) MA 14 (1983–2023) DE 14 (2016–2026) MI 14 (1908–2025) WI 14 (1990–2021) AL 14 (1978–2025) IA 12 (1922–2025) AR 12 (1985–2020) CT 12 (1898–2026) NM 11 (1938–2025) NC 11 (1977–2019) OR 11 (1982–2022) MS 11 (2000–2022) MD 10 (2005–2020) SD 10 (1977–2026) KS 8 (1981–2024) RI 8 (1909–2011) VA 8 (1992–2022) WY 7 (1995–2025) VT 7 (1988–2020) AK 6 (1991–2023) DC 5 (1985–2023) NH 5 (1980–2023) OK 5 (2005–2019) ND 4 (1981–2023) NV 4 (2005–2024) TN 4 (1977–2025) MT 4 (1985–2026) WV 3 (1977–1998) ID 3 (1955–2015) HI 2 (2007–2020)

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