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 1978–2019 0 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 Ex Rel. Reynolds v. Molybdenum Corp. of Americayellow2 sentences2010Our Supreme Court, in examining the specific facts of that case, fashioned a two-pronged test, which required district courts to first determine “upon the basis of the court record and the matters presented at the hearing, whether such action has been timely taken by the plaintiff, the cross-claimant or the counter-claimant against whom the motion is directed.” Id. at 697 , 496 P.2d at 1093 . 2010Our Supreme Court, in examining the specific facts of that case, fashioned a two-pronged test, which required district courts to first determine “upon the basis of the court record and the matters presented at the hearing, whether such action has been timely taken by the plaintiff, the cross-claimant or the counter-claimant against whom the motion is directed.” Id. at 697 , 496 P.2d at 1093 . | 2 | 7 |
Summit Electric Supply Co. v. Rhodes & Salmon, P.C.green1 sentence2019Nevertheless, before granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 1-041(E)(1), the district court must first determine “upon the basis of the court record and the matters presented at the hearing, whether such action has been timely” and if not timely, then the district court asks “whether the party against whom the [motion to dismiss] is directed has been excusably prevented from taking such action.” Summit, 2010-NMCA-086, ¶ 10 (quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
DiMatteo v. County of Dona Anagreen2 sentences1993See SCRA 1-012(B)(6); cf. DiMatteo v. County of Dona Ana, 109 N.M. 374, 378 , 785 P.2d 285, 289 (Ct.App.1989) (where court in ruling upon motion to dismiss considers matters outside the pleadings, order is reviewed as an order granting summary judgment). 1993See SCRA 1-012(B)(6); cf. DiMatteo v. County of Dona Ana, 109 N.M. 374, 378 , 785 P.2d 285, 289 (Ct.App.1989) (where court in ruling upon motion to dismiss considers matters outside the pleadings, order is reviewed as an order granting summary judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Sweenhart v. Co-Con, Inc.green2 sentences1988See Merrill v. Stringer; Trujillo v. Galio; see also Sweenhart v. Co-Con, Inc., 95 N.M. 773 , 626 P.2d 310 (Ct.App.1981). 1988See Merrill v. Stringer; Trujillo v. Galio; see also Sweenhart v. Co-Con, Inc., 95 N.M. 773 , 626 P.2d 310 (Ct.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.