8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co.green2 sentences2025See Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , 19 ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a 20 litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions for the first time on appeal.”); 23 1 see also Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 2023-NMCA-008 , ¶ 61, 523 P.3d 624 (declining 2 to consider jury instruction error asserted on appeal where the record lacks evidence 3 of the objections made to the final instruction and the reasons the district court settled 4 on the instructions submitted to the jury). 5 VI. 2025See Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , 19 ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a 20 litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions for the first time on appeal.”); 23 1 see also Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 2023-NMCA-008 , ¶ 61, 523 P.3d 624 (declining 2 to consider jury instruction error asserted on appeal where the record lacks evidence 3 of the objections made to the final instruction and the reasons the district court settled 4 on the instructions submitted to the jury). 5 VI. | 2 | 2 |
Herrera Ex Rel. Estate of Ruiz v. Quality Pontiacgreen2 sentences2010See Herrera, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 6 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (noting that negligence claims require the existence of a duty and a breach of that duty with the breach being the proximate cause of a plaintiffs damages). 2010See Herrera, 2003-NMSC-018, ¶ 6 , 134 N.M. 43 , 73 P.3d 181 (noting that negligence claims require the existence of a duty and a breach of that duty with the breach being the proximate cause of a plaintiffs damages). | 2 | 2 |
Ulibarri v. Jesionowskigreen2 sentences2025See Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , 19 ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a 20 litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions for the first time on appeal.”); 23 1 see also Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 2023-NMCA-008 , ¶ 61, 523 P.3d 624 (declining 2 to consider jury instruction error asserted on appeal where the record lacks evidence 3 of the objections made to the final instruction and the reasons the district court settled 4 on the instructions submitted to the jury). 5 VI. 2025See Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions for the first time on appeal.”); see also Ulibarri v. Jesionowski, 2023-NMCA-008 , ¶ 61, 523 P.3d 624 (declining to consider jury instruction error asserted on appeal where the record lacks evidence of the objections made to the final instruction and the reasons the district court settled on the instructions submitted to the jury). | 1 | 2 |
Dominguez v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See Dominguez v. State, 2015-NMSC-014, ¶ 15 , 348 P.3d 183 (“[C]ourts will not [make] arguments on a party’s behalf . . . .”); State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (“[T]he appellate court does not review unclear or undeveloped arguments.”). {41} Because Defendant has failed to establish actual error by Salazar, we need not reach the prejudice prong under Strickland, which would otherwise be required in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where a defendant does establish error. | 1 | 1 |
Staplin v. Veselygreen2 sentences1994In addition, Anadarko contends that it meets the object of the Act as stated in Staplin v. Vesely, 41 N.M. 543, 544-45 , 72 P.2d 7, 7 (1937) which is “to authorize the return to the owner of moneys erroneously paid to the Commissioner of Public Lands in the transaction of business when it is covered into his funds in the State Treasury.” As grounds for its erroneous payment, Anadarko alleges that the amount claimed arose from Anadarko’s payment of an obligation imposed upon it by the federal district court in the Stripper Well Litigation because of the operator’s liability doctrine and that th 1994In addition, Anadarko contends that it meets the object of the Act as stated in Staplin v. Vesely, 41 N.M. 543, 544-45 , 72 P.2d 7, 7 (1937) which is “to authorize the return to the owner of moneys erroneously paid to the Commissioner of Public Lands in the transaction of business when it is covered into his funds in the State Treasury.” As grounds for its erroneous payment, Anadarko alleges that the amount claimed arose from Anadarko’s payment of an obligation imposed upon it by the federal district court in the Stripper Well Litigation because of the operator’s liability doctrine and that th | 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. Guerra
green
1 sentence2021See Dominguez v. State, 2015-NMSC-014, ¶ 15 , 348 P.3d 183 (“[C]ourts will not [make] arguments on a party’s behalf . . . .”); State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (“[T]he appellate court does not review unclear or undeveloped arguments.”). {41} Because Defendant has failed to establish actual error by Salazar, we need not reach the prejudice prong under Strickland, which would otherwise be required in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where a defendant does establish error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Lucero
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 453, 863 P.2d at 1074 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Spectron Development Laboratory v. American Hollow Boring Co.
green
1 sentence2009Moreover, even her response to Defendants’ motion to 16 dismiss fails to assert a claim under Section 1983. [RP 463-466] See Spectron Dev. 17 Lab., 1997-NMCA-025, ¶ 32 . 18 In contending that dismissal was improper due to the allegations of violation 19 of her right to privacy, Plaintiff urges us to reconsider our previous holding in Risk 10 1 Management Division v. McBrayer, 2000-NMCA-104 , 129 N.M. 778 , 14 P.3d 43 . 2 [MIO 10] We decline to do so. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Risk Management Division v. McBrayer
green
2 sentences2009Moreover, even her response to Defendants’ motion to 16 dismiss fails to assert a claim under Section 1983. [RP 463-466] See Spectron Dev. 17 Lab., 1997-NMCA-025, ¶ 32 . 18 In contending that dismissal was improper due to the allegations of violation 19 of her right to privacy, Plaintiff urges us to reconsider our previous holding in Risk 10 1 Management Division v. McBrayer, 2000-NMCA-104 , 129 N.M. 778 , 14 P.3d 43 . 2 [MIO 10] We decline to do so. 2009Moreover, even her response to Defendants’ motion to 16 dismiss fails to assert a claim under Section 1983. [RP 463-466] See Spectron Dev. 17 Lab., 1997-NMCA-025, ¶ 32 . 18 In contending that dismissal was improper due to the allegations of violation 19 of her right to privacy, Plaintiff urges us to reconsider our previous holding in Risk 10 1 Management Division v. McBrayer, 2000-NMCA-104 , 129 N.M. 778 , 14 P.3d 43 . 2 [MIO 10] We decline to do so. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.