disputed clause (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

disputed clause in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2023 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. DeAngelogreen
nm · 2015 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020See State v. Silva, 2008- NMSC-051, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (“To preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked . . . .” (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rule 12-216(A) NMRA, recompiled as Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (effective Dec. 31, 2016)); see also State v. DeAngelo M., 2015-NMSC-033, ¶ 18 , 360 P.3d 1151 (noting that “an informed decision” on appeal was precluded by the absence of a record from the trial court).

11
State v. Silvagreen
nm · 2008 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See State v. Silva, 2008- NMSC-051, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (“To preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked . . . .” (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rule 12-216(A) NMRA, recompiled as Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (effective Dec. 31, 2016)); see also State v. DeAngelo M., 2015-NMSC-033, ¶ 18 , 360 P.3d 1151 (noting that “an informed decision” on appeal was precluded by the absence of a record from the trial court).

2020See State v. Silva, 2008- NMSC-051, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (“To preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked . . . .” (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rule 12-216(A) NMRA, recompiled as Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (effective Dec. 31, 2016)); see also State v. DeAngelo M., 2015-NMSC-033, ¶ 18 , 360 P.3d 1151 (noting that “an informed decision” on appeal was precluded by the absence of a record from the trial court).

11
Miller v. Prince Street Elevator Co.green
nm · 1937 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968Note the language of Miller v. Prince Street Elevator Co., 41 N.M. 330, 337 , 68 P.2d 663, 667 (1937): “To constitute an 'accord and satisfaction’ in law dependent upon an offer of the payment of money, it is necessary that the money be offered in full satisfaction of the demand or claim of the creditor, and be accompanied by such acts or declarations as amount to a condition that if the money be accepted it is to be in full satisfaction and to be of such character that the creditor is bound so to understand such offer.” Considering the variation in the notations on the checks, as well as the

1968Note the language of Miller v. Prince Street Elevator Co., 41 N.M. 330, 337 , 68 P.2d 663, 667 (1937): “To constitute an 'accord and satisfaction’ in law dependent upon an offer of the payment of money, it is necessary that the money be offered in full satisfaction of the demand or claim of the creditor, and be accompanied by such acts or declarations as amount to a condition that if the money be accepted it is to be in full satisfaction and to be of such character that the creditor is bound so to understand such offer.” Considering the variation in the notations on the checks, as well as the

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
Martinez v. New Mexico State Engineer Office green
nmctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2023Eng’r Off., 2000-NMCA-074 , ¶¶ 37-46, 48, 129 N.M. 413 , 9 P.3d 657 (considering due process without referencing a disputed standard of review and later noting Rule 1-074); Nichols v. Bd. of Cnty.

2023Eng’r Off., 2000-NMCA-074 , ¶¶ 37-46, 48, 129 N.M. 413 , 9 P.3d 657 (considering due process without referencing a disputed standard of review and later noting Rule 1-074); Nichols v. Bd. of Cnty.

22023–2023
State v. Godoy green
nmctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2013Once again, he urges 6 the Court to consider the merits as fundamental error. 7 In brief, the disputed instruction permitted the jury to return a guilty verdict if 8 it found that Defendant hid, placed, or attempted to hide either a handgun or a rifle. 9 We perceive no error. “[W]here alternative theories of guilt are put forth under a 10 single charge, jury unanimity is required only as to the verdict, not to any particular 11 theory of guilt.” State v. Godoy, 2012-NMCA-084, ¶ 6 , 284 P.3d. 410, cert. denied, 12 2012-NMCERT-007 , ___ P.3d ___.

12013–2013
Robert C. Thorpe v. Bessie P. Thorpe green
cadc · 1966
1 sentence

1983Wokan v. Alladin International, Inc., 485 F.2d 1232 (3rd Cir.1973); Thorpe v. Thorpe, 364 F.2d 692 (D.C.Cir.1966).

11983–1983
Ingridhutte Kurt Wokan v. Alladin International, Inc. green
ca3 · 1973
1 sentence

1983Wokan v. Alladin International, Inc., 485 F.2d 1232 (3rd Cir.1973); Thorpe v. Thorpe, 364 F.2d 692 (D.C.Cir.1966).

11983–1983
Howe v. City of Lowell green
mass · 1898
2 sentences

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 , In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than “fair purposes.” Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has on

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 , In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than “fair purposes.” Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has on

11953–1953
Berger v. Santa Fe College green
nm · 1923
2 sentences

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 , In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than “fair purposes.” Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has on

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 , In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than “fair purposes.” Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has on

11953–1953
Rowe v. May green
nm · 1940
2 sentences

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 , In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than “fair purposes.” Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has on

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 , In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than “fair purposes.” Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has on

11953–1953
Williams v. Box Ch. Baptist Church neutral
texapp · 1934
2 sentences

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 , In thus construing the clause, we find that it does not require any affirmative act on the part of the defendant, such as conducting county or other fairs on the premises as desired by the plaintiffs, but merely requires that the premises not be used for any purposes other than “fair purposes.” Inasmuch as the evidence shows that since it acquired the land, the defendant has on

1953Rowe v. May, 44 N.M. 264 , 101 P.2d 391 ; Berger v. Santa Fe College, 28 N.M. 545 , 215 P. 825 ; Howe v. City of Lowell, 171 Mass. 575 , 51 N.E. 536 ; Williams v. Box Church Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 134 .

11953–1953
Canton Union Coal Co. v. Parlin & Orendorff Co. green
ill · 1905
2 sentences

1923Having failed to do so, cashed the check, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use, he will not now be heard to say that he received it upon terms other than those named by appellee.” We find this declaration from the Supreme Court of California in Lapp-Gifford Co. v. Muscoy Water Co., 166 Cal. 25 , 134 Pac. 989 : “The great weight of authority in American courts undoubtedly supports the rule that, where the amount due is in dispute, and a check for an amount less than that claimed is sent to the creditor, with a statement that it is sent in full satisfaction of the claim, and the tender i

1923Having failed to do so, cashed the check, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use, he will not now be heard to say that he received it upon terms other than those named by appellee.” We find this declaration from the Supreme Court of California in Lapp-Gifford Co. v. Muscoy Water Co., 166 Cal. 25 , 134 Pac. 989 : “The great weight of authority in American courts undoubtedly supports the rule that, where the amount due is in dispute, and a check for an amount less than that claimed is sent to the creditor, with a statement that it is sent in full satisfaction of the claim, and the tender i

11923–1923
Lapp-Gifford Co. v. Muscoy Water Co. green
cal · 1913
2 sentences

1923Having failed to do so, cashed the check, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use, he will not now be heard to say that he received it upon terms other than those named by appellee.” We find this declaration from the Supreme Court of California in Lapp-Gifford Co. v. Muscoy Water Co., 166 Cal. 25 , 134 Pac. 989 : “The great weight of authority in American courts undoubtedly supports the rule that, where the amount due is in dispute, and a check for an amount less than that claimed is sent to the creditor, with a statement that it is sent in full satisfaction of the claim, and the tender i

1923Having failed to do so, cashed the check, and appropriated the proceeds to his own use, he will not now be heard to say that he received it upon terms other than those named by appellee.” We find this declaration from the Supreme Court of California in Lapp-Gifford Co. v. Muscoy Water Co., 166 Cal. 25 , 134 Pac. 989 : “The great weight of authority in American courts undoubtedly supports the rule that, where the amount due is in dispute, and a check for an amount less than that claimed is sent to the creditor, with a statement that it is sent in full satisfaction of the claim, and the tender i

11923–1923

Where else courts name it

NY 134 (1859–2024) CA 111 (1900–2024) LA 101 (1937–2025) TX 62 (1901–2025) GA 62 (1906–2024) PA 46 (1829–2025) OR 44 (1892–2025) NJ 42 (1884–2026) IL 40 (1906–2025) OH 31 (1927–2023) FL 29 (1959–2025) CT 29 (1877–2022) WA 27 (1862–2022) MA 27 (1931–2025) MN 26 (1903–2025) MI 25 (1901–2021) NC 24 (1923–2012) WI 22 (1884–2020) DC 21 (1960–2025) AL 21 (1875–2010) VA 20 (1923–2025) MD 20 (1949–2021) MS 19 (1985–2022) IN 18 (1907–2024) AR 16 (1885–2017) MO 15 (1905–2011) NE 14 (1890–2023) WV 13 (1923–2018) IA 12 (1892–2025) CO 11 (1886–2024) VT 11 (1871–2013) UT 10 (1983–2024) OK 9 (1926–2000) SD 9 (1928–2020) AZ 9 (1950–2021) ND 9 (1997–2024) KS 9 (1920–2026) NM 8 (1923–2023) ID 8 (1912–2019) RI 8 (1917–2010) HI 7 (1956–2021) KY 7 (1941–2024) MT 7 (1900–2017) NH 6 (1902–2018) SC 4 (1934–2026) ME 4 (1911–2010) AK 3 (1981–1999) DE 3 (1934–1969) TN 2 (1999–2018) WY 2 (2007–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check