10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2021 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 Ex Rel. King v. Lyonsgreen1 sentence2021Thus, language in our cases, “to the effect that mandamus is inappropriate where interpretation and judgment are necessary, must be considered in context, not as an inflexible rule.” King, 2011-NMSC-004, ¶ 28 (quoting Sender, 1963-NMSC-220 , ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted)). b. | 1 | 1 |
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Watersgreen1 sentence2018Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 575 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 40-42 , 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 ; State v. Tom, 2010-NMCA-062, ¶ 20 , 148 N.M. 348 , 236 P.3d 660 . 2012See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 40-42 , 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 ; State v. Tom, 2010-NMCA-062, ¶ 20 , 148 N.M. 348 , 236 P.3d 660 . | 1 | 1 |
Sender v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2011Shepard v. Mechem, 56 N.M. 762, 767 , 250 P.2d 897, 900 (1952); Sender v. Montoya, 73 N.M. 287, 292 , 387 P.2d 860, 863 (1963) (holding that mandamus is proper when an officer is performing ministerial duties, and explaining that “language ..., to the effect that mandamus is inappropriate where interpretation and judgment are necessary, must be considered in context, not as an inflexible rule”), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. 2011Shepard v. Mechem, 56 N.M. 762, 767 , 250 P.2d 897, 900 (1952); Sender v. Montoya, 73 N.M. 287, 292 , 387 P.2d 860, 863 (1963) (holding that mandamus is proper when an officer is performing ministerial duties, and explaining that “language ..., to the effect that mandamus is inappropriate where interpretation and judgment are necessary, must be considered in context, not as an inflexible rule”), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Shepard v. Mechemgreen2 sentences2011Shepard v. Mechem, 56 N.M. 762, 767 , 250 P.2d 897, 900 (1952); Sender v. Montoya, 73 N.M. 287, 292 , 387 P.2d 860, 863 (1963) (holding that mandamus is proper when an officer is performing ministerial duties, and explaining that “language ..., to the effect that mandamus is inappropriate where interpretation and judgment are necessary, must be considered in context, not as an inflexible rule”), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. 2011Shepard v. Mechem, 56 N.M. 762, 767 , 250 P.2d 897, 900 (1952); Sender v. Montoya, 73 N.M. 287, 292 , 387 P.2d 860, 863 (1963) (holding that mandamus is proper when an officer is performing ministerial duties, and explaining that “language ..., to the effect that mandamus is inappropriate where interpretation and judgment are necessary, must be considered in context, not as an inflexible rule”), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. of Americagreen2 sentences2011Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. of Am., 83 N.M. 690, 695 , 496 P.2d 1086, 1091 (1972). {29} We do not question the Land Commissioner’s motivation or judgment in engaging in land exchanges. 2011Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. of Am., 83 N.M. 690, 695 , 496 P.2d 1086, 1091 (1972). {29} We do not question the Land Commissioner’s motivation or judgment in engaging in land exchanges. | 1 | 1 |
Rhein v. ADT Automotive, Inc.green1 sentence2001See State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶12 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Breitgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶12 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . 2001See State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶12 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 . | 1 | 1 |
Walton v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See State v. Lovato, 112 N.M. 517, 521 , 817 P.2d 251, 255 (Ct.App.1991) (listing exceptions to the rule); see also Walton v. State, 98 Idaho 442 , 566 P.2d 765, 768 (1977) (uncontroverted evidence does not automatically mean petitioner has shown absence from demanding state at time of offense). 1997See State v. Lovato, 112 N.M. 517, 521 , 817 P.2d 251, 255 (Ct.App.1991) (listing exceptions to the rule); see also Walton v. State, 98 Idaho 442 , 566 P.2d 765, 768 (1977) (uncontroverted evidence does not automatically mean petitioner has shown absence from demanding state at time of offense). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lovatogreen2 sentences1997See State v. Lovato, 112 N.M. 517, 521 , 817 P.2d 251, 255 (Ct.App.1991) (listing exceptions to the rule); see also Walton v. State, 98 Idaho 442 , 566 P.2d 765, 768 (1977) (uncontroverted evidence does not automatically mean petitioner has shown absence from demanding state at time of offense). 1997See State v. Lovato, 112 N.M. 517, 521 , 817 P.2d 251, 255 (Ct.App.1991) (listing exceptions to the rule); see also Walton v. State, 98 Idaho 442 , 566 P.2d 765, 768 (1977) (uncontroverted evidence does not automatically mean petitioner has shown absence from demanding state at time of offense). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. House
green
2 sentences2014However, “[application of this doctrine is a matter of discretion and is not an inflexible rule of jurisdiction.” State v. House, 2001-NMCA-011, ¶ 10 , 130 N.M. 418 , 25 P.3d 257 . 2014However, “[application of this doctrine is a matter of discretion and is not an inflexible rule of jurisdiction.” State v. House, 2001-NMCA-011, ¶ 10 , 130 N.M. 418 , 25 P.3d 257 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State ex rel. League of Women Voters v. Herrera
green
1 sentence2021Respondent had a nondiscretionary duty to conduct elections in full compliance with the Election Code, and equity is not available to circumvent an express statutory scheme {36} The statutory framework makes “clear that the Secretary [of State] must follow the Election Code, and does not have the power to change its mandatory provisions.” Herrera, 2009-NMSC-003, ¶ 12 ; see, e.g., § 1-2-1(B) (stating that the Secretary’s responsibilities as chief election officer include “obtain[ing] and maintain[ing] uniformity in the application, operation and interpretation of the Election Code” and “mak[ing | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sewell v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2016Sewell v. Wilson, 1982-NMCA-017 ¶ 23, 97 N.M. 523 , 641 P.2d 1070 (“Expert testimony ... is required if the alleged negligence is in an area peculiarly within the knowledge of physicians.”). {22} The district court properly granted a directed verdict with respect to the negligent operation claim, not because there is an inflexible rule that expert testimony can never be disregarded by the jury, but because under these facts, it would have been patently unreasonable for the jury to concoct from nothing its own competing professional standard of care. 2016Sewell v. Wilson, 1982-NMCA-017 ¶ 23, 97 N.M. 523 , 641 P.2d 1070 (“Expert testimony ... is required if the alleged negligence is in an area peculiarly within the knowledge of physicians.”). {22} The district court properly granted a directed verdict with respect to the negligent operation claim, not because there is an inflexible rule that expert testimony can never be disregarded by the jury, but because under these facts, it would have been patently unreasonable for the jury to concoct from nothing its own competing professional standard of care. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Tom
green
2 sentences2012See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 40-42 , 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 ; State v. Tom, 2010-NMCA-062, ¶ 20 , 148 N.M. 348 , 236 P.3d 660 . 2012See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 40-42 , 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 ; State v. Tom, 2010-NMCA-062, ¶ 20 , 148 N.M. 348 , 236 P.3d 660 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Mobley v. Harkins
green
2 sentences1954In Mobley v. Harkins, 14 Wash.2d 276 , 128 P.2d 289, 291 , 143 A.L.R. 88 , the court said: “It was an inflexible rule at common law that a merger always took place when a greater and a lesser estate met in the ownership of the same person without any intermediate estate, but modernly the doctrine of merger is not favored either at law or in equity. 1954In Mobley v. Harkins, 14 Wash.2d 276 , 128 P.2d 289, 291 , 143 A.L.R. 88 , the court said: “It was an inflexible rule at common law that a merger always took place when a greater and a lesser estate met in the ownership of the same person without any intermediate estate, but modernly the doctrine of merger is not favored either at law or in equity. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.