8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 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. Franksgreen2 sentences2003In Defendant’s view, the existence of either an agreement or a waiver is a fact-based issue that cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because he must be alerted to the issue and be given an opportunity to present evidence on the factual issue at the district court level. {12} While it is true that we do not affirm the decision of the district court where it would be unfair to one party because the argument was not made below, see State v. Franks, 119 N.M. 174, 177 , 889 P.2d 209, 212 (Ct.App.1994) (reviewing court will not affirm on fact-dependent ground not raised below given unfairn 2003In Defendant’s view, the existence of either an agreement or a waiver is a fact-based issue that cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because he must be alerted to the issue and be given an opportunity to present evidence on the factual issue at the district court level. {12} While it is true that we do not affirm the decision of the district court where it would be unfair to one party because the argument was not made below, see State v. Franks, 119 N.M. 174, 177 , 889 P.2d 209, 212 (Ct.App.1994) (reviewing court will not affirm on fact-dependent ground not raised below given unfairn | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Fuel & Minerals, Inc. v. Iowa State Board of Regentsgreen1 sentence1993See also Iowa Fuel & Minerals, Inc. v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 471 N.W.2d 859, 863 (Iowa 1991) (“[Contract will not be interpreted giving discretion to one party in a manner which would put one party at the mercy of another, unless the contract clearly requires such an interpretation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Yates v. Fergusongreen2 sentences1990See Clark, 87 N.M. at 453 , 535 P.2d at 1079 ; Yates v. Ferguson, 81 N.M. 613, 615 , 471 P.2d 183, 185 (1970) (receipt of additional security operates as accord and satisfaction if parties intend settlement agreement). 1990See Clark, 87 N.M. at 453 , 535 P.2d at 1079 ; Yates v. Ferguson, 81 N.M. 613, 615 , 471 P.2d 183, 185 (1970) (receipt of additional security operates as accord and satisfaction if parties intend settlement agreement). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trammelgreen2 sentences1990State v. Trammel, 100 N.M. 543 , 673 P.2d 827 (Ct.App.1983). 1990Id. 100 N.M. at 547, 673 P.2d at 831. | 1 | 1 |
Clark Leasing Corp. v. White Sands Forest Products, Inc.green2 sentences1990See Clark, 87 N.M. at 453 , 535 P.2d at 1079 ; Yates v. Ferguson, 81 N.M. 613, 615 , 471 P.2d 183, 185 (1970) (receipt of additional security operates as accord and satisfaction if parties intend settlement agreement). 1990See Clark, 87 N.M. at 453 , 535 P.2d at 1079 ; Yates v. Ferguson, 81 N.M. 613, 615 , 471 P.2d 183, 185 (1970) (receipt of additional security operates as accord and satisfaction if parties intend settlement agreement). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trammelgreen2 sentences1990State v. Trammel, 100 N.M. 543 , 673 P.2d 827 (Ct.App.1983). 1990Id. 100 N.M. at 547, 673 P.2d at 831. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cordova v. World Finance Corp. of NM
green
2 sentences2024Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 40 , 146 N.M. 256 , 208 P.3d 901 ). 23 {5} In its reply to Plaintiff’s arguments, UDC conceded, “[t]o the extent the 24 mutual waiver of prevailing party attorneys’ fees and costs is contrary to the UPA, 4 1 that clause is void [only] for purposes of Plaintiff’s UPA claim [but not Plaintiff’s 2 remaining claims].” UDC argued that if the court found the attorney’s fees and costs 3 waiver to be unenforceable as it relates to Plaintiff’s UPA claim it could strike the 4 waiver and enforce the remainder of the agreement because the waiver was not 5 “‘central to the a 2024Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 40 , 146 N.M. 256 , 208 P.3d 901 ). 23 {5} In its reply to Plaintiff’s arguments, UDC conceded, “[t]o the extent the 24 mutual waiver of prevailing party attorneys’ fees and costs is contrary to the UPA, 4 1 that clause is void [only] for purposes of Plaintiff’s UPA claim [but not Plaintiff’s 2 remaining claims].” UDC argued that if the court found the attorney’s fees and costs 3 waiver to be unenforceable as it relates to Plaintiff’s UPA claim it could strike the 4 waiver and enforce the remainder of the agreement because the waiver was not 5 “‘central to the a | 2 | 2024–2024 |
City of Albuquerque v. BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016This case and Sierra are distinct from BPLW because BPLW only had to indemnify the city against suits “arising out of or resulting from any negligent act, error, or omission of [BPLW].” BPLW, 2009-NMCA-081, ¶ 14 . {45} The indemnification provision in this case is statutorily void and unenforceable because it requires Rooter to indemnify Safeway for Safeway’s own negligence. 2016This case and Sierra are distinct from BPLW because BPLW only had to indemnify the city against suits “arising out of or resulting from any negligent act, error, or omission of [BPLW].” BPLW, 2009-NMCA-081, ¶ 14 . {45} The indemnification provision in this case is statutorily void and unenforceable because it requires Rooter to indemnify Safeway for Safeway’s own negligence. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
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.