10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Keygreen2 sentences2013Similarly, Plaintiffs attempts to distinguish the authority we 2 relied on in the calendar notice as dispositive (we discuss this authority below) on the 3 basis that an in personam rather than in rem remedy was pursued in those cases, must 4 fail. [MIO 10] Finally, for the reasons fully discussed in the calendar notice and set 5 forth below, we remain persuaded that the “opposing parties” and the “logical 6 relationship” tests applicable to the compulsory counterclaim analysis have been met 7 in this case. [MIO 10-13] 8 The order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint 9 {8} In affirming the distric 2013Similarly, Plaintiffs attempts to distinguish the authority we 2 relied on in the calendar notice as dispositive (we discuss this authority below) on the 3 basis that an in personam rather than in rem remedy was pursued in those cases, must 4 fail. [MIO 10] Finally, for the reasons fully discussed in the calendar notice and set 5 forth below, we remain persuaded that the “opposing parties” and the “logical 6 relationship” tests applicable to the compulsory counterclaim analysis have been met 7 in this case. [MIO 10-13] 8 The order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint 9 {8} In affirming the distric | 5 | 5 |
Computer One, Inc. v. Grisham & Lawless P.A.green2 sentences2013In other words, “it is the adversarial nature of the relationship between the 6 parties from the beginning that . . . trigger[s] the compulsory counterclaim rule and 7 its attendant res judicata effect.” 2008-NMSC-038, ¶ 18 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted). 2008In other words, it is the adversarial nature of the relationship between the parties from the beginning that ... trigger^] the compulsory counterclaim rule and its attendant res judicata effect.” 2008-NMSC-038, ¶ 18 , 144 N.M. 424 , 188 P.3d 1175 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Kisluk
green
2 sentences2008In other words, it is the adversarial nature of the relationship between the parties from the beginning “that ... triggers] the compulsory counterclaim rule and its attendant res judicata effect.” Id. {19} This Court has previously rejected the preclusive effect of the compulsory counterclaim rule with respect to an attorney’s motion for fees, but we have not yet addressed the compulsory counterclaim rule in the context of a charging lien. 2007Computer One bases its argument on Bennett v. Kisluk, 112 N.M. 221 , 814 P.2d 89 (1991), in which our Supreme Court held that a motion for legal fees was insufficient to invoke the compulsory counterclaim rule. | 4 | 1993–2008 |
Brunacini v. Kavanagh
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 123 , 869 P.2d at 822 . {12} In Bennett, an attorney filed a motion for attorney fees just before his former client reached a settlement agreement. 2007Id. at 123 , 869 P.2d at 822 . {12} In Bennett, an attorney filed a motion for attorney fees just before his former client reached a settlement agreement. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Heffern v. First Interstate Bank
green
2 sentences2013Similarly, Plaintiffs attempts to distinguish the authority we 2 relied on in the calendar notice as dispositive (we discuss this authority below) on the 3 basis that an in personam rather than in rem remedy was pursued in those cases, must 4 fail. [MIO 10] Finally, for the reasons fully discussed in the calendar notice and set 5 forth below, we remain persuaded that the “opposing parties” and the “logical 6 relationship” tests applicable to the compulsory counterclaim analysis have been met 7 in this case. [MIO 10-13] 8 The order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint 9 {8} In affirming the distric 2013Similarly, Plaintiffs attempts to distinguish the authority we 2 relied on in the calendar notice as dispositive (we discuss this authority below) on the 3 basis that an in personam rather than in rem remedy was pursued in those cases, must 4 fail. [MIO 10] Finally, for the reasons fully discussed in the calendar notice and set 5 forth below, we remain persuaded that the “opposing parties” and the “logical 6 relationship” tests applicable to the compulsory counterclaim analysis have been met 7 in this case. [MIO 10-13] 8 The order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint 9 {8} In affirming the distric | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.