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 1998–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2011See Rent-A-Center, 130 S.Ct. at 2778-79 (stating that delegation clauses are enforced under § 2 of the FAA and are therefore valid “save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract;” further stating that unless a delegation clause is specifically challenged and found to be unenforceable, courts must treat it “as valid under § 2, and must enforce it under §§ 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the [a]greement as a whole for the arbitrator”). {32} In this case, we have concluded that Felts’ argument under Fiser that the class action ban in the 2011See Rent-A-Center, 130 S.Ct. at 2778-79 (stating that delegation clauses are enforced under § 2 of the FAA and are therefore valid "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract;" further stating that unless a delegation clause is specifically challenged and found to be unenforceable, courts must treat it "as valid under § 2, and must enforce it under §§ 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the [a]greement as a whole for the arbitrator"). {32} In this case, we have concluded that Felts' argument under Fiser that the class action ban in the | 2 | 2 |
Felts v. CLK Management, Inc.green1 sentence2023See Felts, 2011-NMCA-062, ¶¶ 31-33 (“The next step in our analysis, based on Rent-A-Center, is to determine whether [the party’s] specific challenges to the delegation clause, as described above, render that clause unenforceable under Section 2 of the [Federal Arbitration Act].” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLCgreen1 sentence2020See Peterson, 2014-NMCA-036, ¶ 34 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gerald B.green2 sentences2012See 6 State v. Gerald B., 2006-NMCA-022, ¶¶ 31-32 , 139 N.M. 113 , 129 P.3d 149 7 (explaining that the preliminary issue of whether the defendant met the burden of 8 presenting a prima facie case becomes moot when the district court proceeds past the 9 first step of the Batson analysis without making any findings). 10 In the second step of the Batson analysis, the burden shifts to the State to 11 articulate a racially neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge. 2012See 6 State v. Gerald B., 2006-NMCA-022, ¶¶ 31-32 , 139 N.M. 113 , 129 P.3d 149 7 (explaining that the preliminary issue of whether the defendant met the burden of 8 presenting a prima facie case becomes moot when the district court proceeds past the 9 first step of the Batson analysis without making any findings). 10 In the second step of the Batson analysis, the burden shifts to the State to 11 articulate a racially neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge. | 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. Lopez
green
1 sentence2016In so finding, the court did not abuse its discretion. 16 {30} The next step in the analysis, “[w]hether a party had an opportunity and similar 17 motive to develop testimony[,] must be determined on a case-by-case basis.” Lopez, 18 2011-NMSC-035, ¶ 6 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Barr
green
1 sentence2011Barr, 1999-NMCA-081, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Templeton v. Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District
green
2 sentences2004Templeton, 65 N.M. at 68 , 332 P.2d at 471 . 2004Templeton, 65 N.M. at 68 , 332 P.2d at 471 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lexington Insurance v. Rummel
green
2 sentences1998Co., 1997-NMSC-043, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 774 , 945 P.2d 992 . {17} Without asking what the justification for PNM’s act might have been, which is the next step in the analysis, we need to discern the intent of PNM. 1998Co., 1997-NMSC-043, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 774 , 945 P.2d 992 . {17} Without asking what the justification for PNM’s act might have been, which is the next step in the analysis, we need to discern the intent of PNM. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.