Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Marquezgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Marquez, 1998-NMCA-010, ¶ 21 , 124 N.M. 409 , 951 P.2d 1070 (“The remedy afforded for prejudice by an amendment is to ‘postpone the trial or grant such other relief as may be proper under the circumstances.’” (quoting Rule 5-204(C))). 2014See State v. Marquez, 1998-NMCA-010, ¶ 21 , 124 N.M. 409 , 951 P.2d 1070 (“The remedy afforded for prejudice by an amendment is to ‘postpone the trial or grant such other relief as may be proper under the circumstances.’” (quoting Rule 5-204(C))). | 2 | 2 |
Reule Sun Corp. v. Vallesgreen2 sentences2013See Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 2010-NMSC-004, ¶ 30 , 147 N.M. 512 , 226 P.3d 611 (stating that the placement of language at the beginning of a clause evinces legislative intent that the clause is meant to apply to the statute in whole). 2013See Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 2010-NMSC-004, ¶ 30 , 147 N.M. 512 , 226 P.3d 611 (stating that the placement of language at the beginning of a clause evinces legislative intent that the clause is meant to apply to the statute in whole). | 2 | 2 |
Rates & Charges of Mountain States Tel. & Tel.green2 sentences1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). *49 {35} In this case, the Commission's staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. 1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). {35} In this ease, the Commission’s staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Rates & Charges of Mt. States Tel.green2 sentences1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). *49 {35} In this case, the Commission's staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. 1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). {35} In this ease, the Commission’s staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Rates and Charges of US Westgreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). *49 {35} In this case, the Commission's staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. 1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). *49 {35} In this case, the Commission's staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. | 2 | 2 |
Dietrich v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen2 sentences1989See Dietrich v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 293 A.2d 470 (D.C.App.1972) (parties in a zoning appeal have a right to cross-examine witnesses offered by an adversary). 1989See Dietrich v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 293 A.2d 470 (D.C.App. 1972) (parties in a zoning appeal have a right to cross-examine witnesses offered by an adversary). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Corporation Commission
green
2 sentences1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). *49 {35} In this case, the Commission's staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. 1999See, e.g., U S West 1995, 121 N.M. at 163-64 , 909 P.2d at 723-24 (noting testimony of a staff witness); Mountain States 1986, 104 N.M. at 40, 715 P.2d at 1336 (same); Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 8 , 653 P.2d at 508 (same). {35} In this ease, the Commission’s staff first announced that Mr. Roybal was in attendance as a staff witness when entering its appearance at the beginning of the hearing. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Montoya
green
1 sentence2020Defendant does not ask us to alternatively review this issue for fundamental error. {24} “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Montoya
green
1 sentence2020Defendant does not ask us to alternatively review this issue for fundamental error. {24} “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Oregon v. Ice
green
2 sentences2010To determine whether Apprendi applies, Ice teaches that we must look to "whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within `the domain of the jury ... by those who framed the Bill of Rights.'" 555 U.S. at ___ , 129 S.Ct. at 717 (quoting Harris, 536 U.S. at 557 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 ). {42} We agree with the Court of Appeals that the historical analysis undertaken in Ice would be a poor fit here if the inquiry were limited to whether the post-trial amenability determination required by Section 32A-2-20(B) was within the purview of the jury at the time of the framing of the Bill of Ri 2010To determine whether Apprendi applies, Ice teaches that we must look to “whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within ‘the domain of the jury ... by those who framed the Bill of Rights.’ ” 555 U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 717 (quoting Harris, 536 U.S. at 557 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 ). {42} We agree with the Court of Appeals that the historical analysis undertaken in Ice would be a poor fit here if the inquiry were limited to whether the post-trial amenability determination required by Section 32A-2-20(B) was within the purview of the jury at the time of the framing of the Bill of Righ | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Harris v. United States
red
2 sentences2010To determine whether Apprendi applies, Ice teaches that we must look to “whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within ‘the domain of the jury ... by those who framed the Bill of Rights.’ ” 555 U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 717 (quoting Harris, 536 U.S. at 557 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 ). {42} We agree with the Court of Appeals that the historical analysis undertaken in Ice would be a poor fit here if the inquiry were limited to whether the post-trial amenability determination required by Section 32A-2-20(B) was within the purview of the jury at the time of the framing of the Bill of Righ 2010To determine whether Apprendi applies, Ice teaches that we must look to “whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within ‘the domain of the jury ... by those who framed the Bill of Rights.’ ” 555 U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 717 (quoting Harris, 536 U.S. at 557 , 122 S.Ct. 2406 ). {42} We agree with the Court of Appeals that the historical analysis undertaken in Ice would be a poor fit here if the inquiry were limited to whether the post-trial amenability determination required by Section 32A-2-20(B) was within the purview of the jury at the time of the framing of the Bill of Righ | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Doe v. State
green
2 sentences1976At the beginning of the hearing the child’s attorney moved to dismiss the delinquency petition with prejudice on the basis that “the 15 days was up yesterday.” See Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 644 , 545 P.2d 1022 (Ct.App.1976). 1976At the beginning of the hearing the child’s attorney moved to dismiss the delinquency petition with prejudice on the basis that “the 15 days was up yesterday.” See Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 644 , 545 P.2d 1022 (Ct.App.1976). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.