10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Leegreen2 sentences2007See Williams, 358 U.S. 217 , 79 S.Ct. 269 . 1976In these circumstances, Arizona’s right to exercise the jurisdiction claimed must be determined in light of whether such exercise would ‘infringfe] on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them,’ (Williams v. Lee, supra at p. 220 of 358 U.S., at p. 271 of 79 S.Ct.) or, as the Williams’ test was characterized by the court in Kake, Organized Village of v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 , 82 S.Ct. 562 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 573 (1961), ‘whether the application of that law would interfere with reservation self-government.’ Id. at p. 67, 82 S. Ct., at p. 567 . | 1 | 2 |
People v. Delgadogreen2 sentences2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct 2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct 2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kerbygreen2 sentences2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct 2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct 2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pricegreen2 sentences2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct 2024Id.; see id. ¶ 19 (quoting People v. Williams, 981 P.2d 42, 45 (Cal. 1999) for the proposition that the court may “‘determine from the available record whether the action is barred’”); see also People v. Smith, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (observing that Williams clarified that “when an appellate court is reviewing a statute of limitations question after a conviction for the charged offenses, the proper question is whether the record demonstrates that the crime charged actually fell within the applicable statute of limitations”); People v. Price, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 602-03 (Ct | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fuentesgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29 , 147 N.M. 761 , 228 P.3d 1181 (noting that this Court does “not review unclear or undeveloped arguments [that] require us to guess at what [a] part[y’s] arguments might be”). {25} Evidence that similarly situated individuals were treated differently and less severely is admissible to show bias or unequal or disparate treatment in imposing discipline. 2021See State v. Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29 , 147 N.M. 761 , 228 P.3d 1181 (noting that this Court does “not review unclear or undeveloped arguments [that] require us to guess at what [a] part[y’s] arguments might be”). {25} Evidence that similarly situated individuals were treated differently and less severely is admissible to show bias or unequal or disparate treatment in imposing discipline. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Jojolagreen2 sentences2003Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Jojola, 99 N.M. 500, 502 , 660 P.2d 590, 592 (1983). 2003Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Jojola, 99 N.M. 500, 502 , 660 P.2d 590, 592 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Antelopegreen2 sentences1977See United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 , 97 S.Ct. 1395 , 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977). 1977See United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 , 97 S.Ct. 1395 , 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co.
green
1 sentence2020Relying on our decision in Williams v. BNSF Railway Co., 2015-NMCA-109 , 359 P.3d 158 , the Estate argues that “[Defendant] knew about the danger of moving equipment under overhead power lines long before Mr. Flores’s death, just as the Williams defendant developed and used [a safety measure] before the injury-causing incident.” Defendant contends this is a misreading of Williams and that “[a]t most, [the Estate] can assert only that [Defendant] used other safety plans and other corrective actions in the past.” {46} In Williams, we were presented with the question of whether a specific correct | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Pemberton v. Cordova
green
1 sentence2010As we discussed in our 16 notice of proposed disposition, the record indicates that Plaintiff failed to identify any 17 specific waiver of immunity under the Act for the claims asserted in his complaint. 18 [RP 1-9] Thus, we proposed to hold that it was proper for the district court to dismiss 19 the complaint on grounds that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing that his 3 1 complaint fell within an exception to the immunity granted in the Tort Claims Act. 2 Not only does Plaintiff’s complaint fail to identify an exception, [RP 1-9, 202-04] but 3 Plaintiff’s response to Defendant | 1 | 2010–2010 |
The Fort Mojave Tribe v. County Of San Bernardino
green
2 sentences1983Fort Mojave Tribe v. San Bernardino County, supra. The first part of the Williams test is whether there are any Acts of Congress that govern this area. 1983Fort Mojave Tribe v. San Bernardino County, supra. The first part of the Williams test is whether there are any Acts of Congress that govern this area. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Organized Village of Kake v. Egan
green
2 sentences1976In these circumstances, Arizona’s right to exercise the jurisdiction claimed must be determined in light of whether such exercise would ‘infringfe] on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them,’ (Williams v. Lee, supra at p. 220 of 358 U.S., at p. 271 of 79 S.Ct.) or, as the Williams’ test was characterized by the court in Kake, Organized Village of v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 , 82 S.Ct. 562 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 573 (1961), ‘whether the application of that law would interfere with reservation self-government.’ Id. at p. 67, 82 S. Ct., at p. 567 . 1976In these circumstances, Arizona’s right to exercise the jurisdiction claimed must be determined in light of whether such exercise would ‘infringfe] on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them,’ (Williams v. Lee, supra at p. 220 of 358 U.S., at p. 271 of 79 S.Ct.) or, as the Williams’ test was characterized by the court in Kake, Organized Village of v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 , 82 S.Ct. 562 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 573 (1961), ‘whether the application of that law would interfere with reservation self-government.’ Id. at p. 67, 82 S. Ct., at p. 567 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Paiz Ex Rel. Koteen v. Hughes
green
2 sentences1976In Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562 , 417 P.2d 51 (1966), it was explained that the Williams test, discussed above, must be used to determine the state’s jurisdiction over a non-Indian for actions on Indian lands. 1976In Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562 , 417 P.2d 51 (1966), it was explained that the Williams test, discussed above, must be used to determine the state’s jurisdiction over a non-Indian for actions on Indian lands. | 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.