9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 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. Montoyagreen2 sentences2019See State v Montoya, 2011-NMCA-009 , 149 N.M. 242 , 247 P.3d 1127 . 2019See State v Montoya, 2011-NMCA-009 , 149 N.M. 242 , 247 P.3d 1127 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stephen F.green2 sentences2011See State v. Stephen F., 3 2006-NMSC-030, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 24 , 139 P.3d 184 ; State v. Maestas, 2007-NMCA- 4 155, ¶ 9, 143 N.M. 104 , 173 P.3d 26 (holding that application of Supreme Court Rule 5 7-506 NMRA is reviewed de novo). 2011See State v. Stephen F., 3 2006-NMSC-030, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 24 , 139 P.3d 184 ; State v. Maestas, 2007-NMCA- 4 155, ¶ 9, 143 N.M. 104 , 173 P.3d 26 (holding that application of Supreme Court Rule 5 7-506 NMRA is reviewed de novo). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stephen F.green1 sentence2006Stephen F., 2005-NMCA-048, ¶35 (citing Rule 10-229(B)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Remalygreen1 sentence2000See id. (holding that Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for extensions of time under Rule 5-604). {6} In 1998, Paragraph (C) was added to Rule 5-604, giving trial courts authority to grant extensions not exceeding three months. | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Sansoygreen2 sentences1998Because Defendant adequately preserved her argument by tendering a limiting instruction, see Gonzales v. Sansoy, 103 N.M. 127, 131 , 703 P.2d 904, 908 (Ct.App.1984), the trial court erred in refusing to give a limiting instruction. 1998Because Defendant adequately preserved her argument by tendering a limiting instruction, see Gonzales v. Sansoy, 103 N.M. 127, 131 , 703 P.2d 904, 908 (Ct.App.1984), the trial court erred in refusing to give a limiting instruction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lancastergreen2 sentences1998New Mexico precedents permitting the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements without regard to the oath requirement, see State v. Duran, 107 N.M. 603, 607 , 762 P.2d 890, 894 (1988); State v. Lancaster, 116 N.M. 41, 46 , 859 P.2d 1068, 1073 (Ct.App.1993), are no longer controlling because they were based on an earlier version of our rule of evidence. 1998New Mexico precedents permitting the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements without regard to the oath requirement, see State v. Duran, 107 N.M. 603, 607 , 762 P.2d 890, 894 (1988); State v. Lancaster, 116 N.M. 41, 46 , 859 P.2d 1068, 1073 (Ct.App.1993), are no longer controlling because they were based on an earlier version of our rule of evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Durangreen2 sentences1998New Mexico precedents permitting the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements without regard to the oath requirement, see State v. Duran, 107 N.M. 603, 607 , 762 P.2d 890, 894 (1988); State v. Lancaster, 116 N.M. 41, 46 , 859 P.2d 1068, 1073 (Ct.App.1993), are no longer controlling because they were based on an earlier version of our rule of evidence. 1998New Mexico precedents permitting the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements without regard to the oath requirement, see State v. Duran, 107 N.M. 603, 607 , 762 P.2d 890, 894 (1988); State v. Lancaster, 116 N.M. 41, 46 , 859 P.2d 1068, 1073 (Ct.App.1993), are no longer controlling because they were based on an earlier version of our rule of evidence. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Santa Fe v. Marquez
green
1 sentence2024Thus, the district court 2 correctly considered the procedure explained in Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031, ¶ 26 , 3 and properly denied Defendant’s untimely renewed motion to suppress. 4 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 5 {14} Defendant next argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for 6 his attorneys’ failure to properly raise the identification issue in a pretrial 7 suppression motion. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Torres
green
1 sentence2021This Court discussed that history in State v. Torres, 2012-NMCA-026 , 272 P.3d 689 , which involved a prior version of the rule, Rule 5-801(A) (1989). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Salenas
green
1 sentence2019Id. (“[T]he court may dismiss the motion to revoke probation for violating any of the time limits in this rule.” (emphasis added)). [MIO 10] However, he requests we rely on a case interpreting a previous version of the rule, at which point dismissal was required. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State Ex Rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2011Cf. State 18 v. Wilson, 1998-NMCA-084, ¶ 6 , 125 N.M. 390 , 962 P.2d 636 (explaining the effect 10 1 of a similar version of the rule to require that an appeal be tried and disposed of within 2 the time period of the rule or dismissal of the appeal would result). 3 In this case, there was no final resolution or determination in the case on the 4 final day of the Supreme Court extension of time. 2011Cf. State 18 v. Wilson, 1998-NMCA-084, ¶ 6 , 125 N.M. 390 , 962 P.2d 636 (explaining the effect 10 1 of a similar version of the rule to require that an appeal be tried and disposed of within 2 the time period of the rule or dismissal of the appeal would result). 3 In this case, there was no final resolution or determination in the case on the 4 final day of the Supreme Court extension of time. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Maestas
green
2 sentences2011See State v. Stephen F., 3 2006-NMSC-030, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 24 , 139 P.3d 184 ; State v. Maestas, 2007-NMCA- 4 155, ¶ 9, 143 N.M. 104 , 173 P.3d 26 (holding that application of Supreme Court Rule 5 7-506 NMRA is reviewed de novo). 2011See State v. Stephen F., 3 2006-NMSC-030, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 24 , 139 P.3d 184 ; State v. Maestas, 2007-NMCA- 4 155, ¶ 9, 143 N.M. 104 , 173 P.3d 26 (holding that application of Supreme Court Rule 5 7-506 NMRA is reviewed de novo). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Matter of National Cash Register Co. v. Joseph
green
2 sentences1994National Cash Register Co. v. Joseph, 299 N.Y. 200 , 86 N.E.2d 561 (1949). 1994National Cash Register Co. v. Joseph, 299 N.Y. 200 , 86 N.E.2d 561 (1949). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.