11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mowrer v. Ruskgreen2 sentences2023See Mowrer v. Rusk, 1980-NMSC-113 , ¶ 15, 95 N.M. 48 , 618 P.2d 886 (separation of powers); Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 11 (executive privilege); see also id. ¶ 10 (“A case presents an issue of substantial public interest if it involves a constitutional question or affects a fundamental right such as voting.”). 2023See Mowrer v. Rusk, 1980-NMSC-113 , ¶ 15, 95 N.M. 48 , 618 P.2d 886 (separation of powers); Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 11 (executive privilege); see also id. ¶ 10 (“A case presents an issue of substantial public interest if it involves a constitutional question or affects a fundamental right such as voting.”). | 2 | 2 |
Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Committee of Judicial Council of Eleventh Circuit. v. Mercergreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Williams v. Mercer (In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of Judicial Council of Eleventh Circuit), 783 F.2d 1488, 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[T]here exists a privilege . . . protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, In re McBryde, 120 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 1997); Thomas v. Page, 837 N.E.2d 483, 490-91 (Ill. 2018See, e.g. , Williams v. Mercer ( In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of JudicialCouncil of Eleventh Circuit ), 783 F.2d 1488 , 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]here exists a privilege ... protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties."), superseded by statute on other grounds , *514 In re McBryde , 120 F.3d 519 , 524 (5th Cir. 1997) ; Thomas v. Page , 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483 , 490-91 (2005) ("Our analysis leads us to conclude that there exists a judicial deliberation p | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Honorable John H. McBryde District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texasgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Williams v. Mercer (In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of Judicial Council of Eleventh Circuit), 783 F.2d 1488, 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[T]here exists a privilege . . . protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, In re McBryde, 120 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 1997); Thomas v. Page, 837 N.E.2d 483, 490-91 (Ill. 2018See, e.g. , Williams v. Mercer ( In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of JudicialCouncil of Eleventh Circuit ), 783 F.2d 1488 , 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]here exists a privilege ... protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties."), superseded by statute on other grounds , *514 In re McBryde , 120 F.3d 519 , 524 (5th Cir. 1997) ; Thomas v. Page , 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483 , 490-91 (2005) ("Our analysis leads us to conclude that there exists a judicial deliberation p | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. First Judicial District Courtgreen2 sentences2025Ct., 1981-NMSC-053 , 96 N.M. 254 , 629 P.2d 330 , 12 abrogated on other grounds by Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026 ). 13 {17} Our Supreme Court in First Judicial, cited United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 14 683 (1974), agreeing that “[t]he purposes of the executive privilege are to safeguard 15 the decision-making process of the government by fostering candid expression of 16 recommendations and advice and to protect this process from disclosure.” First Jud. 17 Dist. 2025Ct., 1981-NMSC-053 , 96 N.M. 254 , 629 P.2d 330 , 12 abrogated on other grounds by Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026 ). 13 {17} Our Supreme Court in First Judicial, cited United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 14 683 (1974), agreeing that “[t]he purposes of the executive privilege are to safeguard 15 the decision-making process of the government by fostering candid expression of 16 recommendations and advice and to protect this process from disclosure.” First Jud. 17 Dist. | 1 | 8 |
Republican Party v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Departmentgreen2 sentences2025Ct., 1981-NMSC-053 , 96 N.M. 254 , 629 P.2d 330 , abrogated on other grounds by Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026 ). {17} Our Supreme Court in First Judicial, cited United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), agreeing that “[t]he purposes of the executive privilege are to safeguard the decision-making process of the government by fostering candid expression of recommendations and advice and to protect this process from disclosure.” First Jud. 2025Ct., 1981-NMSC-053 , 96 N.M. 254 , 629 P.2d 330 , 12 abrogated on other grounds by Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026 ). 13 {17} Our Supreme Court in First Judicial, cited United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 14 683 (1974), agreeing that “[t]he purposes of the executive privilege are to safeguard 15 the decision-making process of the government by fostering candid expression of 16 recommendations and advice and to protect this process from disclosure.” First Jud. 17 Dist. | 1 | 5 |
Thomas v. Pagegreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Williams v. Mercer ( In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of JudicialCouncil of Eleventh Circuit ), 783 F.2d 1488 , 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]here exists a privilege ... protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties."), superseded by statute on other grounds , *514 In re McBryde , 120 F.3d 519 , 524 (5th Cir. 1997) ; Thomas v. Page , 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483 , 490-91 (2005) ("Our analysis leads us to conclude that there exists a judicial deliberation p 2018See, e.g. , Williams v. Mercer ( In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of JudicialCouncil of Eleventh Circuit ), 783 F.2d 1488 , 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]here exists a privilege ... protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties."), superseded by statute on other grounds , *514 In re McBryde , 120 F.3d 519 , 524 (5th Cir. 1997) ; Thomas v. Page , 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483 , 490-91 (2005) ("Our analysis leads us to conclude that there exists a judicial deliberation p | 1 | 2 |
In re Sealed Casegreen2 sentences2012See In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 736-37 (D.C. 2010Further, Plaintiffs assert that they have not located any case that “extends the privilege broadly to any employee within an executive branch agency” as adopted by the district court in this case. {31} First, we observe that Plaintiffs’ argument appears to be based on the executive communications arm of executive privilege — the language relied on by Plaintiffs refers to this arm of the privilege, not the deliberative process sub-category. “ ‘[Executive privilege’ is generally used to refer to a wide variety of evidentiary and substantive privileges that courts accord the executive branch.” In | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Farmington v. Daily Times
green
2 sentences2010The district court determined that the privilege had been invoked; that Plaintiffs had shown that their interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process constituted good cause for requesting the information; and that in order to properly evaluate the privilege, it would reserve ruling whether the privilege applied "pending an in camera review of the communications at issue." Under the "rule of reason," the court is to "view, in camera, the information in the possession of the custodian and make a determination regarding the competing public policies based on that information." The Da 2010The district court determined that the privilege had been invoked; that Plaintiffs had shown that their interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process constituted good cause for requesting the information; and that in order to properly evaluate the privilege, it would reserve ruling whether the privilege applied "pending an in camera review of the communications at issue." Under the "rule of reason," the court is to "view, in camera, the information in the possession of the custodian and make a determination regarding the competing public policies based on that information." The Da | 2 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Nixon
green
1 sentence2025Ct., 1981-NMSC-053 , 96 N.M. 254 , 629 P.2d 330 , abrogated on other grounds by Republican Party of N.M., 2012-NMSC-026 ). {17} Our Supreme Court in First Judicial, cited United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), agreeing that “[t]he purposes of the executive privilege are to safeguard the decision-making process of the government by fostering candid expression of recommendations and advice and to protect this process from disclosure.” First Jud. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re the Enforcement of a Subpoena
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Williams v. Mercer ( In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of JudicialCouncil of Eleventh Circuit ), 783 F.2d 1488 , 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]here exists a privilege ... protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties."), superseded by statute on other grounds , *514 In re McBryde , 120 F.3d 519 , 524 (5th Cir. 1997) ; Thomas v. Page , 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483 , 490-91 (2005) ("Our analysis leads us to conclude that there exists a judicial deliberation p 2018See, e.g. , Williams v. Mercer ( In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. of JudicialCouncil of Eleventh Circuit ), 783 F.2d 1488 , 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]here exists a privilege ... protecting confidential communications among judges and their staffs in the performance of their judicial duties."), superseded by statute on other grounds , *514 In re McBryde , 120 F.3d 519 , 524 (5th Cir. 1997) ; Thomas v. Page , 361 Ill.App.3d 484 , 297 Ill.Dec. 400 , 837 N.E.2d 483 , 490-91 (2005) ("Our analysis leads us to conclude that there exists a judicial deliberation p | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Babets v. Secretary of Human Services
green
1 sentence2012The court in Babets concluded that the doctrine of separation of powers did not compel recognition of an executive privilege, as “[w]hat [the] doctrine interdicts is the interference by one branch of go vernment with the power or functions of another,” and the decision not to recognize an executive privilege “does not constitute the exercise of nonjudicial power or interfere with the Executive’s power.” Id. at 1263 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.