11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 1 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. Ryongreen2 sentences2019See 2005-NMSC-005 , ¶¶ 26, 29, 137 N.M. 174 , 108 P.3d 1032 ("The emergency assistance doctrine, which may justify more intrusive searches of the home or person, must be assessed separately by a distinct test."). 2019See 2005-NMSC-005 , ¶¶ 26, 29, 137 N.M. 174 , 108 P.3d 1032 ("The emergency assistance doctrine, which may justify more intrusive searches of the home or person, must be assessed separately by a distinct test."). | 2 | 2 |
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2011In deciding the issue, the Court’s opinion in Rentr-A-Center referenced the respondent’s “response to RenP-A-Center’s motion to compel arbitration” as well as his briefs to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court on the issue and his oral argument before the Supreme Court. 130 S.Ct. at 2779-81. 2011In deciding the issue, the Court's opinion in Rent-A-Center referenced the respondent's "response to Rent-A-Center 's motion to compel arbitration" as well as his briefs to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court on the issue and his oral argument before the Supreme Court. 130 S.Ct. at 2779-81. | 2 | 2 |
Protection & Advocacy System, Inc. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servicesgreen1 sentence2025Sys., 13 Inc., 1999-NMCA-122, ¶ 21 (“In the case before us, however, we do not conduct 14 our own analysis of prudential considerations, because standing is governed by 15 specific statutory language.”). 16 {12} Zeroing in on the development of the Statutory Standing Rule as a distinct 17 analysis, the parties and Court of Appeals’ concurrence leverage the history of the 18 Statutory Standing Rule as a distinct doctrine in contrasting ways. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2011LaFave, The “Routine Traffic Stop” From Start to Finish: Too Much “Routine, ” Not Enough Fourth Amendment, 102 Mich. L.Rev. 1843, 1887 (2004) (footnotes omitted); see also State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1205-06 (Ind.2008) (applying a distinct analysis to a state constitutional claim after determining that questions asked of a driver about contraband did not violate the Fourth Amendment pursuant to Muehler because “[t]he Indiana Constitution may protect searches that the federal Constitution does not”); Brown v. State, 182 P.3d 624, 626 (Alaska Ct.App.2008) (interpreting the search and s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2011LaFave, The “Routine Traffic Stop” From Start to Finish: Too Much “Routine, ” Not Enough Fourth Amendment, 102 Mich. L.Rev. 1843, 1887 (2004) (footnotes omitted); see also State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1205-06 (Ind.2008) (applying a distinct analysis to a state constitutional claim after determining that questions asked of a driver about contraband did not violate the Fourth Amendment pursuant to Muehler because “[t]he Indiana Constitution may protect searches that the federal Constitution does not”); Brown v. State, 182 P.3d 624, 626 (Alaska Ct.App.2008) (interpreting the search and s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2011LaFave, The “Routine Traffic Stop” From Start to Finish: Too Much “Routine, ” Not Enough Fourth Amendment, 102 Mich. L.Rev. 1843, 1887 (2004) (footnotes omitted); see also State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1205-06 (Ind.2008) (applying a distinct analysis to a state constitutional claim after determining that questions asked of a driver about contraband did not violate the Fourth Amendment pursuant to Muehler because “[t]he Indiana Constitution may protect searches that the federal Constitution does not”); Brown v. State, 182 P.3d 624, 626 (Alaska Ct.App.2008) (interpreting the search and s | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen1 sentence2005LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 6.6(a) n. 5, at 390 (3d ed.1996); see also Davis, 497 N.W.2d at 920-21 (noting the need for standards specific to emergency entries). | 1 | 1 |
Gomez v. B.E. Harvey Gin Corp.green2 sentences2000Harvey Gin Corp., 110 N.M. 100, 102 , 792 P.2d 1143, 1145 (1990). {9} As our discussion below indicates, the traveling-employee rule recognizes that the conditions faced by employees working “on the road,” away from home and away from their employer’s home office, are sufficiently different from the conditions faced by employees merely going to or from their local place of employment on a daily basis to warrant a distinct rule. 2000Harvey Gin Corp., 110 N.M. 100, 102 , 792 P.2d 1143, 1145 (1990). {9} As our discussion below indicates, the traveling-employee rule recognizes that the conditions faced by employees working “on the road,” away from home and away from their employer’s home office, are sufficiently different from the conditions faced by employees merely going to or from their local place of employment on a daily basis to warrant a distinct rule. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Raymond L. Scharfgreen2 sentences1981See, United States v. Scharf, 551 F.2d 1124 (8th Cir.1977). 1981See, United States v. Scharf, 551 F.2d 1124 (8th Cir. 1977). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
green
2 sentences2011Although the Supreme Court may have considered only the "crux of the complaint" in Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , the Court looked beyond the complaint in Rent-A-Center when it examined whether the respondent there had raised a specific and distinct challenge to the delegation provision of the arbitration agreement at issue. 2011Although the Supreme Court may have considered only the "crux of the complaint" in Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 444 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 , the Court looked beyond the complaint in Rent-A-Center when it examined whether the respondent there had raised a specific and distinct challenge to the delegation provision of the arbitration agreement at issue. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Albuquerque
green
1 sentence2025Lopez and the 19 Court of Appeals’ concurrence assert that the Rule first appeared in a footnote in 8 1 ACLU of N.M., 2008-NMSC-045 , ¶ 9 n.1. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Leon
green
1 sentence2019As a result, the relevant deadline was properly calculated based upon the service of that petition. {9} Finally, we understand Child to argue that the result we reach is unfair, because it permits the State to limit the scope of petitions to revoke, effectively withholding alleged violations to create the opportunity for successive filings, thereby extending deadlines. [MIO 8-10] We acknowledge that the potential for such gamesmanship may exist, given that the rules clearly accommodate the pendency of multiple petitions, see Rule 10-243(C), and given that “there are no specific mandatory time | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Morningstar Water Users Ass'n v. New Mexico Public Utility Commission
green
2 sentences2006Morningstar, 120 N.M. at 582-83 , 904 P.2d at 31-32 . {10} “[I]t is the function of the courts to interpret the law,” and we are therefore not “bound by [an] agency’s interpretation (of law) and may substitute (our) own judgment for” that of the agency. 2006Morningstar, 120 N.M. at 582-83 , 904 P.2d at 31-32 . {10} “[I]t is the function of the courts to interpret the law,” and we are therefore not “bound by [an] agency’s interpretation (of law) and may substitute (our) own judgment for” that of the agency. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
cluster 303604
green
1 sentence1981State v. Ortiz, 77 N.M. 751 , 427 P.2d 264 (1967); Waiters v. Harris, supra. The trial court did not make the separate and distinct inquiry required by the second sentence of Rule 21(f). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences1981State v. Ortiz, 77 N.M. 751 , 427 P.2d 264 (1967); Waiters v. Harris, supra. The trial court did not make the separate and distinct inquiry required by the second sentence of Rule 21(f). 1981State v. Ortiz, 77 N.M. 751 , 427 P.2d 264 (1967); Waiters v. Harris, supra. The trial court did not make the separate and distinct inquiry required by the second sentence of Rule 21(f). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.