Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2022 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. Taylorgreen2 sentences2012In concluding that a defendant was entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel on collateral review, the Supreme Court stated that "it can hardly be said that recognizing the right to effective counsel breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the [s]tates[.]" Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2012In concluding that a defendant was entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel on collateral review, the Supreme Court stated that "it can hardly be said that recognizing the right to effective counsel breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the [s]tates[.]" Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martingreen1 sentence2022See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 688 (2001) (providing that “an individualized inquiry must be made to determine whether a specific modification for a particular person’s disability would be reasonable under the circumstances as well as necessary for that person, and yet at the same time not work a fundamental alteration”). | 1 | 1 |
Sias v. Edge Communications, Inc.green1 sentence2005See In re Phenylpropanolamine, 214 F.R.D. at 618-19 ; see also Sias, 8 P.3d at 186 (stating that the record failed to indicate that any class members could be identified through reasonable efforts since potential class members “likely do not possess any proof of their qualification as class members because the [calling] cards are intended to be discarded”). {54} All said, the most important focus and most salient question to ask in terms of manageability should remain that based on the language of Rule 1-023(B)(3), namely, even with significant management concerns, is the class action superior | 1 | 1 |
Freedman v. Amalgamated Sugar Co.green1 sentence2005See In re Phenylpropanolamine, 214 F.R.D. at 618-19 ; see also Sias, 8 P.3d at 186 (stating that the record failed to indicate that any class members could be identified through reasonable efforts since potential class members “likely do not possess any proof of their qualification as class members because the [calling] cards are intended to be discarded”). {54} All said, the most important focus and most salient question to ask in terms of manageability should remain that based on the language of Rule 1-023(B)(3), namely, even with significant management concerns, is the class action superior | 1 | 1 |
In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigationgreen1 sentence2005See In re Phenylpropanolamine, 214 F.R.D. at 618-19 ; see also Sias, 8 P.3d at 186 (stating that the record failed to indicate that any class members could be identified through reasonable efforts since potential class members “likely do not possess any proof of their qualification as class members because the [calling] cards are intended to be discarded”). {54} All said, the most important focus and most salient question to ask in terms of manageability should remain that based on the language of Rule 1-023(B)(3), namely, even with significant management concerns, is the class action superior | 1 | 1 |
In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigationgreen1 sentence2005See In re Phenylpropanolamine, 214 F.R.D. at 618-19 ; see also Sias, 8 P.3d at 186 (stating that the record failed to indicate that any class members could be identified through reasonable efforts since potential class members “likely do not possess any proof of their qualification as class members because the [calling] cards are intended to be discarded”). {54} All said, the most important focus and most salient question to ask in terms of manageability should remain that based on the language of Rule 1-023(B)(3), namely, even with significant management concerns, is the class action superior | 1 | 1 |
Easley v. Snidergreen1 sentence1997See Aughe v. Shalala, 885 F.Supp. 1428, 1432 (W.D.Wash.1995); see, e.g., Easley by Easley v. Snider, 36 F.3d 297 , 301-06 (3d Cir.1994) (mental alertness may be an essential eligibility requirement where claimant’s severe degree of mental disability rendered participation in the program ineffectual); Franklin v. United States Postal Serv., 687 F.Supp. 1214, 1219 (S.D.Ohio 1988) (person with history of antisocial behavior whose condition of paranoid schizophrenia is not controllable by medication or is otherwise a danger to public and coworkers is not an otherwise qualified handicapped individu | 1 | 1 |
Franklin v. U.S. Postal Servicegreen1 sentence1997See Aughe v. Shalala, 885 F.Supp. 1428, 1432 (W.D.Wash.1995); see, e.g., Easley by Easley v. Snider, 36 F.3d 297 , 301-06 (3d Cir.1994) (mental alertness may be an essential eligibility requirement where claimant’s severe degree of mental disability rendered participation in the program ineffectual); Franklin v. United States Postal Serv., 687 F.Supp. 1214, 1219 (S.D.Ohio 1988) (person with history of antisocial behavior whose condition of paranoid schizophrenia is not controllable by medication or is otherwise a danger to public and coworkers is not an otherwise qualified handicapped individu | 1 | 1 |
Aughe v. Shalalagreen1 sentence1997See Aughe v. Shalala, 885 F.Supp. 1428, 1432 (W.D.Wash.1995); see, e.g., Easley by Easley v. Snider, 36 F.3d 297 , 301-06 (3d Cir.1994) (mental alertness may be an essential eligibility requirement where claimant’s severe degree of mental disability rendered participation in the program ineffectual); Franklin v. United States Postal Serv., 687 F.Supp. 1214, 1219 (S.D.Ohio 1988) (person with history of antisocial behavior whose condition of paranoid schizophrenia is not controllable by medication or is otherwise a danger to public and coworkers is not an otherwise qualified handicapped individu | 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 Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Johnny S.
green
2 sentences2022In Johnny S., Sr., this Court addressed the steps necessary to properly request reasonable accommodation under the ADA and to preserve any violation of the ADA for appeal. 2009-NMCA-032, ¶ 8 . 2022In Johnny S., 5 Sr., this Court addressed the steps necessary to properly request reasonable 6 accommodation under the ADA and to preserve any violation of the ADA for appeal. 7 2009-NMCA-032 , ¶ 8. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2012Because the circumstances of each case are different, “a court deciding an actual ineffectiveness claim must judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” Id. at 690 . {9} Even while applying an individualized inquiry, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel as stated in Strickland is a clearly established rule. 2012Because the circumstances of each case are different, "a court deciding an actual ineffectiveness claim must judge the reasonableness of counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct." Id. at 690 . {9} Even while applying an individualized inquiry, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel as stated in Strickland is a clearly established rule. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. John
green
2 sentences2009Children, Youth & Families Department v. John D., 1997-NMCA-019, ¶ 21 , 123 N.M. 114 , 934 P.2d 308 , noting that "a lower court must determine whether the eligibility requirements are necessary and, if so, must conduct an individualized inquiry into whether reasonable modifications can be made in the case." Father also asserted at oral argument that placing the onus on the district court to at least raise the issue is reasonable given the fundamental nature of the familial interests at stake. {7} We decline to place on district judges the obligation to initiate inquiry into the applicability 2009Children, Youth & Families Department v. John D., 1997-NMCA-019, ¶ 21 , 123 N.M. 114 , 934 P.2d 308 , noting that "a lower court must determine whether the eligibility requirements are necessary and, if so, must conduct an individualized inquiry into whether reasonable modifications can be made in the case." Father also asserted at oral argument that placing the onus on the district court to at least raise the issue is reasonable given the fundamental nature of the familial interests at stake. {7} We decline to place on district judges the obligation to initiate inquiry into the applicability | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Jones v. United States
green
2 sentences2000"In order for a capital sentencing scheme to pass constitutional muster, it must perform a narrowing function with respect to the class of persons eligible for the death penalty[, known as the eligibility phase,] and must also ensure that capital sentencing decisions rest upon an individualized inquiry[, known as the selection phase]." Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 381 , 119 S.Ct. 2090 , 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). 2000"In order for a capital sentencing scheme to pass constitutional muster, it must perform a narrowing function with respect to the class of persons eligible for the death penalty[, known as the eligibility phase,] and must also ensure that capital sentencing decisions rest upon an individualized inquiry[, known as the selection phase]." Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 381 , 119 S.Ct. 2090 , 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Zant v. Stephens
green
2 sentences2000"What is important at the selection stage is an individualized determination on the basis of ... the individual and the circumstances of the crime." Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 879 , 103 S.Ct. 2733 , 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). *151 Consideration of both the offender and the offense in order to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence has been viewed as a progressive and humanizing development. 2000"What is important at the selection stage is an individualized determination on the basis of ... the individual and the circumstances of the crime." Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 879 , 103 S.Ct. 2733 , 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). *151 Consideration of both the offender and the offense in order to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence has been viewed as a progressive and humanizing development. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.