9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgadogreen2 sentences2023See Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC- 4 030, ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717 , 507 P.2d 778 (“The general rule is that a court lower in rank 5 than the court which made the decision invoked as a precedent cannot deviate 6 therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, irrespective of whether it considers 7 the rule laid down therein as correct or incorrect.” (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted)); see also N.M. 2023See Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC- 4 030, ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717 , 507 P.2d 778 (“The general rule is that a court lower in rank 5 than the court which made the decision invoked as a precedent cannot deviate 6 therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, irrespective of whether it considers 7 the rule laid down therein as correct or incorrect.” (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted)); see also N.M. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sladegreen1 sentence2019See Slade, 2014-NMCA-088, ¶ 14 . {17} The State’s arguments in defense of the conviction are sparse and confused. | 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. Griego
green
2 sentences2016We rejected the state’s arguments for an exception to the finality rule based on practical finality because “[n]ot to limit the doctrine of practical finality would allow the exception to fast swallow the rule.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2016We rejected the state’s arguments for an exception to the finality rule based on practical finality because “[n]ot to limit the doctrine of practical finality would allow the exception to fast swallow the rule.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Montoya
green
1 sentence2021And because our review of this issue is de novo, see Montoya, 2010-NMCA-067, ¶ 11 , we decline to rely on such speculation. {18} Third, the State argues that when a district court makes no findings of fact, the general rule is that the appellate court “indulge[s] all presumptions in favor of the district court’s ruling[,]” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 11, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 , which addresses suppression of evidence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Jason L.
green
2 sentences2021And because our review of this issue is de novo, see Montoya, 2010-NMCA-067, ¶ 11 , we decline to rely on such speculation. {18} Third, the State argues that when a district court makes no findings of fact, the general rule is that the appellate court “indulge[s] all presumptions in favor of the district court’s ruling[,]” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 11, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 , which addresses suppression of evidence. 2021And because our review of this issue is de novo, see Montoya, 2010-NMCA-067, ¶ 11 , we decline to rely on such speculation. {18} Third, the State argues that when a district court makes no findings of fact, the general rule is that the appellate court “indulge[s] all presumptions in favor of the district court’s ruling[,]” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 11, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 , which addresses suppression of evidence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miera v. Territory of New Mexico
neutral
2 sentences2017The arguments of defense counsel are “not to be regarded as evidence.” Miera v. Territory, 1905-NMSC-022 , ¶ 17, 13 N.M. 192 , 81 P. 586 . 2017The arguments of defense counsel are “not to be regarded as evidence.” Miera v. Territory, 1905-NMSC-022 , ¶ 17, 13 N.M. 192 , 81 P. 586 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
1 sentence2017Despite inferences to be drawn from the above cited articles, Defendant has not directed this Court to any evidence establishing that the primary purpose of Wal-Mart’s surveillance 10 system is to “create a record for trial.” Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 669 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gonzales v. State
green
2 sentences2015As we previously 17 observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the prosecutor appears to 18 have commented in closing upon defense counsel’s failure to challenge identity, rather 19 than Defendant’s failure to testify. [RP 169] In response Defendant relies upon the 4 1 case of Gonzales v. State, 1980-NMSC-070 , 94 N.M. 495 , 612 P.2d 1306 , in which 2 the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial based upon the prosecutor’s closing 3 references to the defendant’s failure to either deny the allegations or to offer any 4 justification for his acts. [MIO 19] The Court observed that 2015As we previously 17 observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the prosecutor appears to 18 have commented in closing upon defense counsel’s failure to challenge identity, rather 19 than Defendant’s failure to testify. [RP 169] In response Defendant relies upon the 4 1 case of Gonzales v. State, 1980-NMSC-070 , 94 N.M. 495 , 612 P.2d 1306 , in which 2 the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial based upon the prosecutor’s closing 3 references to the defendant’s failure to either deny the allegations or to offer any 4 justification for his acts. [MIO 19] The Court observed that | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Milto
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 277-78 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.