11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tafoyagreen2 sentences2022We consider whether the 6 district court erred by concluding that Defendant, a serious youthful offender serving 7 less than life imprisonment, is eligible to earn meritorious deductions under the 8 Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), NMSA 1978, § 33-2-34 (2015).1 In 9 State v. Tafoya, 2010-NMSC-019, ¶ 21 , 148 N.M. 391 , 237 P.3d 693 , we held that 10 the authority of a district court to sentence a serious youthful offender to less than 11 life imprisonment “implies the discretion to award [a] serious youthful offender[] 12 good-time credit eligibility within the existing framework of t 2022We consider whether the 6 district court erred by concluding that Defendant, a serious youthful offender serving 7 less than life imprisonment, is eligible to earn meritorious deductions under the 8 Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), NMSA 1978, § 33-2-34 (2015).1 In 9 State v. Tafoya, 2010-NMSC-019, ¶ 21 , 148 N.M. 391 , 237 P.3d 693 , we held that 10 the authority of a district court to sentence a serious youthful offender to less than 11 life imprisonment “implies the discretion to award [a] serious youthful offender[] 12 good-time credit eligibility within the existing framework of t | 1 | 3 |
State v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2022Cf. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 14 (recognizing a court’s “inherent discretionary authority” to award presentence confinement credits as long as the credit “does not lessen the penalty intended by the Legislature, or otherwise frustrate the Legislature’s constitutional function of establishing criminal penalties”). {32} The Legislature’s decision to grant discretion to district courts in sentencing serious youthful offenders is grounded in the unique considerations that arise in the context of juvenile sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
Ramirez v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Ramirez, 2014-NMSC-023, ¶¶ 14, 17 (highlighting that Paredez does nothing more than apply an existing rule). | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.green1 sentence2019We first address the requirement that the Division demonstrate probable cause because it is dispositive to our analysis. {16} Administrative probable cause exists based on either: (1) “specific evidence of an existing violation” or (2) “a showing that reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular establishment.” Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. at 320 (alteration, omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Oregongreen1 sentence2015Inc. v. Goffe, 1977-NMSC-071 , ¶ 14, 90 N.M. 753 , 568 P.2d 589 (discussing a physician’s obligation to adhere to recognized standards of medical practice in the community); Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 271 (2006) (noting that the development of best practices in medicine—also referred to as the standard of care—is left to physicians and regulated by the states). {127} Dr. Kress, who practices aid in dying in Montana, which has no regulatory framework, testified at length about how doctors in that state would be liable for malpractice were they to prescribe the medication without “tapping | 1 | 1 |
Chaidez v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014Chaidez,:___U.S. at___, 133 S. Ct. at 1114 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (internal citation omitted). {15} We surveyed the professional norms relevant in New Mexico, which indicate that counsel was obligated at the time of Ramirez’s arraignment and pleas to certify having conferred with Ramirez about the plea affidavit, including potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Castrogreen2 sentences2000"If the answer to [ any one ] of these questions is in the affirmative, the defendant has been prejudiced...." People v. Castro, 184 Cal.App.3d 849, 856 , 229 Cal.Rptr. 280, 284 (1986); see also Smoketree-Lake Murray, Ltd. v. Mills Concrete Constr. 2000"If the answer to [ any one ] of these questions is in the affirmative, the defendant has been prejudiced...." People v. Castro, 184 Cal.App.3d 849, 856 , 229 Cal.Rptr. 280, 284 (1986); see also Smoketree-Lake Murray, Ltd. v. Mills Concrete Constr. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence1998In Mississippi, the Supreme Court has indicated that to be sufficient for conviction, uncorroborated accomplice testimony must be “reasonable, not improbable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached.” Johns v. State, 592 So.2d 86, 88 (Miss.1991) (quoting Jones v. State, 368 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Miss.1979)). {17} Given this variety, we are not persuaded that the existing instruction on witness credibility, on the facts of this case, inadequately instructed the jury. | 1 | 1 |
Johns v. Stategreen1 sentence1998In Mississippi, the Supreme Court has indicated that to be sufficient for conviction, uncorroborated accomplice testimony must be “reasonable, not improbable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached.” Johns v. State, 592 So.2d 86, 88 (Miss.1991) (quoting Jones v. State, 368 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Miss.1979)). {17} Given this variety, we are not persuaded that the existing instruction on witness credibility, on the facts of this case, inadequately instructed the jury. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buhrgreen2 sentences1986See State v. Buhr, 82 N.M. 371 , 482 P.2d 74 (Ct.App. 1971). 1986See State v. Buhr, 82 N.M. 371 , 482 P.2d 74 (Ct.App. 1971). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc. v. Goffe
green
2 sentences2015Inc. v. Goffe, 1977-NMSC-071 , ¶ 14, 90 N.M. 753 , 568 P.2d 589 (discussing a physician’s obligation to adhere to recognized standards of medical practice in the community); Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 271 (2006) (noting that the development of best practices in medicine—also referred to as the standard of care—is left to physicians and regulated by the states). {127} Dr. Kress, who practices aid in dying in Montana, which has no regulatory framework, testified at length about how doctors in that state would be liable for malpractice were they to prescribe the medication without “tapping 2015Inc. v. Goffe, 1977-NMSC-071 , ¶ 14, 90 N.M. 753 , 568 P.2d 589 (discussing a physician’s obligation to adhere to recognized standards of medical practice in the community); Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 271 (2006) (noting that the development of best practices in medicine—also referred to as the standard of care—is left to physicians and regulated by the states). {127} Dr. Kress, who practices aid in dying in Montana, which has no regulatory framework, testified at length about how doctors in that state would be liable for malpractice were they to prescribe the medication without “tapping | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2000Any doubt there may be on what effect or prejudice the information provided had on the jury, I submit, should be resolved in favor of Defendant, in light of the existing presumption of prejudice. {55} In Martinez , a case cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Sacoman , the California Court of Appeal set forth three factors that must be considered in deciding whether a defendant was prejudiced by juror misconduct in receiving evidence not presented in court"[W]hether the jury's impartiality has been adversely affected, whether the prosecution's burden of proof has been lightened[, or] wh 2000Any doubt there may be on what effect or prejudice the information provided had on the jury, I submit, should be resolved in favor of Defendant, in light of the existing presumption of prejudice. {55} In Martinez, a case cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Sacoman, the California Court of Appeal set forth three factors that must be considered in deciding whether a defendant was prejudiced by juror misconduct in receiving evidence not presented in court — “[W]hether the jury’s impartiality has been adversely affected, whether the prosecution’s burden of proof has been lightened}, or] wh | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1978For purposes of an administrative search such as this, probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant may be based not only on specific evidence of an existing violation but also on a showing that `reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an ... inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular [establishment].' Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, [387 U.S.] at 538, 87 S.Ct. 1727 . 1978For purposes of an administrative search such as this, probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant may be based not only on specific evidence of an existing violation but also on a showing that ‘reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular [establishment].’ Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, [387 U.S.] at 538, 87 S.Ct. 1727 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.