9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harpergreen2 sentences2017While Defendant is 13 correct in his recitation of our standard of review, Harper makes clear what 14 constitutes an abuse of discretion in this context. 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 27 (“Under the 15 circumstances of this case, failure to impose a less severe sanction, together with the 16 lack of any proof of prejudice to [the defendant] or an intentional refusal to obey the 17 district court’s discovery directive, constituted an abuse of discretion.”). 2017While Defendant is correct in his recitation of our standard of review, Harper makes clear what constitutes an abuse of discretion in this context. 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 27 (“Under the circumstances of this case, failure to impose a less severe sanction, together with the lack of any proof of prejudice to [the defendant] or an intentional refusal to obey the district court’s discovery directive, constituted an abuse of discretion.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Riosgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Rios, 1999-NMCA-069, ¶¶ 22, 24 , 127 N.M. 334 , 980 P.2d 1068 (addressing a similar situation, and reviewing for substantial evidence). 2022See State v. Rios, 1999-NMCA-069, ¶¶ 22, 24 , 127 N.M. 334 , 980 P.2d 1068 (addressing a similar situation, and reviewing for substantial evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rojogreen1 sentence2019See Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19 (stating that we will not second-guess the jury’s verdict based upon a defendant’s contrary theory supporting acquittal because “the jury is free to reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2004State v. Ferguson, 111 N.M. 191, 193 , 803 P.2d 676, 678 (Ct.App. 1990). 2004State v. Ferguson, 111 N.M. 191, 193 , 803 P.2d 676, 678 (Ct.App. 1990). | 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. Samora
green
1 sentence2026As the district court’s decision to admit the photographs is neither “clearly untenable” nor “[un]justified by reason,” Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 37 , the court did not err in admitting the exhibits. 3. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Slade
green
1 sentence2019“This principle necessarily requires a reviewing court to distinguish between conclusions based on speculation and those based on inferences, a task that is not always straightforward.” State v. Slade, 2014-NMCA-088, ¶ 14 , 331 P.3d 930 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Flores
green
2 sentences2019While we must, as noted, apply a highly deferential standard to our review of a jury’s verdict, it is “the independent responsibility of the courts to ensure that the jury’s decisions are supportable by evidence in the record, rather than mere guess or conjecture.” State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 2 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 ; see UJI 14-6006 NMRA (“Your verdict should not be based on speculation, guess or conjecture.”). 2019While we must, as noted, apply a highly deferential standard to our review of a jury’s verdict, it is “the independent responsibility of the courts to ensure that the jury’s decisions are supportable by evidence in the record, rather than mere guess or conjecture.” State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 2 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 ; see UJI 14-6006 NMRA (“Your verdict should not be based on speculation, guess or conjecture.”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Barnett
green
2 sentences2013However, “the abuse-of-discretion 10 standard does not preclude an appellate court from correcting errors premised on the 11 trial court’s misapprehension of the law.” State v. Barnett, 1998-NMCA-105, ¶ 13 , 12 125 N.M. 739 , 965 P.2d 323 . 13 {3} The 2011 amendment to Rule 5-805(L) provides that the courts “may dismiss 14 [a] motion to revoke probation for violating any of the time limits” set forth in earlier 15 sub-parts of the rule. 2013However, “the abuse-of-discretion 10 standard does not preclude an appellate court from correcting errors premised on the 11 trial court’s misapprehension of the law.” State v. Barnett, 1998-NMCA-105, ¶ 13 , 12 125 N.M. 739 , 965 P.2d 323 . 13 {3} The 2011 amendment to Rule 5-805(L) provides that the courts “may dismiss 14 [a] motion to revoke probation for violating any of the time limits” set forth in earlier 15 sub-parts of the rule. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Brooks v. Norwest Corp.
green
1 sentence2007As we previously observed in Brooks, such omissions are not necessarily fatal to the court’s decision to certify the class, but “we nevertheless remind the district courts that given the highly deferential standard under which we review class certification, and the inherent complexities of the issue, the court should be as specific as possible in its findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.