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 2008–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2016Gomez v. Campbell, 1965-NMSC- 025, ¶¶ 15, 18, 75 N.M. 86 , 400 P.2d 956 (concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish standing but proceeding to the merits of the constitutional question in that case due to its “great public interest”). {14} In ACLU of New Mexico, we reaffirmed our adherence to the federal three-pronged approach in cases that do not present issues of fundamental public importance; we also recognized that the injury in fact requirement in particular is “deeply ingrained in New Mexico jurisprudence.” 2008-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 10-22 . 2016Gomez v. Campbell, 1965-NMSC-025 , ¶¶ 15, 18, 75 N.M. 86 , 400 P.2d 956 (concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish standing but proceeding to the merits of the constitutional question in that case due to its “great public interest”). {14} In ACLU of New Mexico, we reaffirmed our adherence to the federal three-pronged approach in cases that do not present issues of fundamental public importance; we also recognized that the injury in fact requirement in particular is “deeply ingrained in New Mexico jurisprudence.” 2008-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 10-22 . | 1 | 3 |
DE VARGAS SAVINGS & L. ASS'N OF SANTA v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2008Injury in fact has evolved in New Mexico jurisprudence in response to developments in federal law that created a more flexible standard, departing from older, more formalistic notions of a “legally protected interest.” See De Vargas Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Campbell, 87 N.M. 469, 471 , 535 P.2d 1320, 1323 (1975) (noting that “[t]he flaw in the ‘legal interest’ test is that it requires a court to examine the merits of a case, while the purpose of the standing question is quite distinct — to protect against improper plaintiffs”). 2008Injury in fact has evolved in New Mexico jurisprudence in response to developments in federal law that created a more flexible standard, departing from older, more formalistic notions of a “legally protected interest.” See De Vargas Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Campbell, 87 N.M. 469, 471 , 535 P.2d 1320, 1323 (1975) (noting that “[t]he flaw in the ‘legal interest’ test is that it requires a court to examine the merits of a case, while the purpose of the standing question is quite distinct — to protect against improper plaintiffs”). | 1 | 1 |
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2008See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque (ACLU I), 1999-NMSC-044, ¶ 9 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 . 2008See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque (ACLU I), 1999-NMSC-044, ¶ 9 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 . | 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. Gomez v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2016Gomez v. Campbell, 1965-NMSC-025 , ¶¶ 15, 18, 75 N.M. 86 , 400 P.2d 956 (concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish standing but proceeding to the merits of the constitutional question in that case due to its “great public interest”). {14} In ACLU of New Mexico, we reaffirmed our adherence to the federal three-pronged approach in cases that do not present issues of fundamental public importance; we also recognized that the injury in fact requirement in particular is “deeply ingrained in New Mexico jurisprudence.” 2008-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 10-22 . 2016Gomez v. Campbell, 1965-NMSC-025 , ¶¶ 15, 18, 75 N.M. 86 , 400 P.2d 956 (concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish standing but proceeding to the merits of the constitutional question in that case due to its “great public interest”). {14} In ACLU of New Mexico, we reaffirmed our adherence to the federal three-pronged approach in cases that do not present issues of fundamental public importance; we also recognized that the injury in fact requirement in particular is “deeply ingrained in New Mexico jurisprudence.” 2008-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 10-22 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Rio Grande Kennel Club v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences2009Rio Grande Kennel Club, 2008-NMCA-093, ¶ 11 , 144 N.M. 636 , 190 P.3d 1131 . {18} Here, Father has a sufficient injury and a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of this matter to satisfy the injury in fact requirement. 2009Rio Grande Kennel Club, 2008-NMCA-093, ¶ 11 , 144 N.M. 636 , 190 P.3d 1131 . {18} Here, Father has a sufficient injury and a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of this matter to satisfy the injury in fact requirement. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶ 12 , 19 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 . 2023Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC-005, ¶ 12 , 19 126 N.M. 788 , 975 P.2d 841 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2020Although Defendants reference the three-prong test in the brief in chief, Defendants failed to address the second and third prongs and thus, we limit our analysis accordingly. {4} The injury in fact requirement, requires a party filing suit to demonstrate “injury in a direct and concrete way[.]” Deutsche Bank, 2016-NMSC-013 , ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
AFSCME v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cty.
green
2 sentences2019To establish a direct injury for standing purposes, a party must show that he or she is “imminently threatened with injury” or “faced with a real risk of future injury, as a result of the challenged action or statute.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019Relevant to this Court’s inquiry is the injury in fact requirement, which requires litigants to demonstrate that “they are directly injured as a result of the action they seek to challenge.” AFSCME, 2016-NMSC-017, ¶ 32 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences2008“Plaintiffs argue that, since it is not illegal to drive a vehicle or to drink before driving a vehicle, so long as the driver’s blood alcohol concentration is within statutory limits, the Ordinance potentially subjects drivers who drink, but are not intoxicated under our laws, to the threat of forfeiture of the vehicle that they are driving.” ACLU II, 2007-NMCA-092, ¶ 9 , 142 N.M. 259 , 164 P.3d 958 . {24} We agree with the Court of Appeals that this asserted injury is simply too speculative with respect to Simonson or any individual driver who is an ACLU member to meet the injury in fact sta 2008“Plaintiffs argue that, since it is not illegal to drive a vehicle or to drink before driving a vehicle, so long as the driver’s blood alcohol concentration is within statutory limits, the Ordinance potentially subjects drivers who drink, but are not intoxicated under our laws, to the threat of forfeiture of the vehicle that they are driving.” ACLU II, 2007-NMCA-092, ¶ 9 , 142 N.M. 259 , 164 P.3d 958 . {24} We agree with the Court of Appeals that this asserted injury is simply too speculative with respect to Simonson or any individual driver who is an ACLU member to meet the injury in fact sta | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Corn v. New Mexico Educators Federal Credit Union
green
1 sentence2008Id. {17} Plaintiffs claim that at the core of the holdings in De Vargas and Com was the court’s consideration that the potential injury could be very serious. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
ACLU v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences2008“Plaintiffs argue that, since it is not illegal to drive a vehicle or to drink before driving a vehicle, so long as the driver’s blood alcohol concentration is within statutory limits, the Ordinance potentially subjects drivers who drink, but are not intoxicated under our laws, to the threat of forfeiture of the vehicle that they are driving.” ACLU II, 2007-NMCA-092, ¶ 9 , 142 N.M. 259 , 164 P.3d 958 . {24} We agree with the Court of Appeals that this asserted injury is simply too speculative with respect to Simonson or any individual driver who is an ACLU member to meet the injury in fact sta 2008As noted by the Court of Appeals, Simonson’s vehicle could only be forfeited in the manner alleged if the following contingencies were to take place: “(1) he drinks an amount of alcohol that does not raise his blood alcohol concentration above statutory limits, (2) he is stopped by police and arrested for driving while intoxicated, (3) he has his vehicle seized, (4) he requests a hearing as provided by Section 7-6-5 of the Ordinance, (5) the hearing officer finds that police did have probable cause to seize the vehicle, and (6) the City is successful in obtaining an order of forfeiture from th | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.