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.
8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2020 0 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. Martinezgreen2 sentences2020This rule only requires that the trial court “be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the foundational requirement has been met.” Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶ 19 . {36} Defendant argues that the district court erred in admitting “multiple unconfronted, accusatorial hearsay statements of [Victim], without a preponderance of the evidence that [Defendant] caused her death for the specific purpose of preventing her availability.” The district relied almost exclusively on Giles in finding intent, concluding that [t]here is a preponderance of the evidence that [Defendant] intentionally ca 2019Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp., 2007-NMCA-133, ¶ 13 , 143 N.M. 215 , 175 P.3d 309 (“The party claiming privilege has the burden of establishing that a communication is protected[.]”); see also State v. Martinez, 2007- NMSC-025, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 713 , 160 P.3d 894 (explaining that when determining the admissibility of evidence, the district court “need only be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the foundational requirement has been met”). | 2 | 7 |
Cross v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015Prods., Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1965) (finding secondary evidence inadmissible where the plaintiff introduced “little if any evidence” related to the extent of the search for the missing originals); United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that secondary evidence of GPS data was impermissible where the government failed to offer “any record evidence that it would have been impossible or even difficult to download or print out the data” from the device); Cross v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 , 1998 WL 255054, at *4-5 (10th Cir. 1998) (non- | 1 | 1 |
cluster 371774green1 sentence2015Prods., Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1965) (finding secondary evidence inadmissible where the plaintiff introduced “little if any evidence” related to the extent of the search for the missing originals); United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that secondary evidence of GPS data was impermissible where the government failed to offer “any record evidence that it would have been impossible or even difficult to download or print out the data” from the device); Cross v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 , 1998 WL 255054, at *4-5 (10th Cir. 1998) (non- | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Guy E. McGaughey Jr.green1 sentence2015Prods., Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1965) (finding secondary evidence inadmissible where the plaintiff introduced “little if any evidence” related to the extent of the search for the missing originals); United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that secondary evidence of GPS data was impermissible where the government failed to offer “any record evidence that it would have been impossible or even difficult to download or print out the data” from the device); Cross v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 , 1998 WL 255054, at *4-5 (10th Cir. 1998) (non- | 1 | 1 |
Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Paul L. Flanagan, D/B/A Paul L. Flanagan and Sonsgreen1 sentence2015Prods., Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1965) (finding secondary evidence inadmissible where the plaintiff introduced “little if any evidence” related to the extent of the search for the missing originals); United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that secondary evidence of GPS data was impermissible where the government failed to offer “any record evidence that it would have been impossible or even difficult to download or print out the data” from the device); Cross v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 , 1998 WL 255054, at *4-5 (10th Cir. 1998) (non- | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Vincent Franklin Bennettgreen1 sentence2015Prods., Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1965) (finding secondary evidence inadmissible where the plaintiff introduced “little if any evidence” related to the extent of the search for the missing originals); United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that secondary evidence of GPS data was impermissible where the government failed to offer “any record evidence that it would have been impossible or even difficult to download or print out the data” from the device); Cross v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 , 1998 WL 255054, at *4-5 (10th Cir. 1998) (non- | 1 | 1 |
The United States of America v. Victor Standing Soldiergreen1 sentence2015Prods., Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1965) (finding secondary evidence inadmissible where the plaintiff introduced “little if any evidence” related to the extent of the search for the missing originals); United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that secondary evidence of GPS data was impermissible where the government failed to offer “any record evidence that it would have been impossible or even difficult to download or print out the data” from the device); Cross v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 , 1998 WL 255054, at *4-5 (10th Cir. 1998) (non- | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roybalgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 311 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1206 (Ct.App.1988) (discussing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-79 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). 2007See State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 311 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1206 (Ct.App.1988) (discussing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-79 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 311 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1206 (Ct.App.1988) (discussing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-79 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). 2007See State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 311 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1206 (Ct.App.1988) (discussing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-79 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lopez v. Townsend
green
2 sentences2019Based on the evidence Gutierrez introduced at the hearing, the district court was unable to determine whether he and Evelyn were married when the statements were made. “[I]f the probabilities are equal there is no preponderance of evidence, [and] the burden of proof has not been sustained[.]” Lopez v. Townsend, 1938-NMSC-058 , ¶ 49, 42 N.M. 601 , 82 P.2d 921 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019Based on the evidence Gutierrez introduced at the hearing, the district court was unable to determine whether he and Evelyn were married when the statements were made. “[I]f the probabilities are equal there is no preponderance of evidence, [and] the burden of proof has not been sustained[.]” Lopez v. Townsend, 1938-NMSC-058 , ¶ 49, 42 N.M. 601 , 82 P.2d 921 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp.
green
2 sentences2019Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp., 2007-NMCA-133, ¶ 13 , 143 N.M. 215 , 175 P.3d 309 (“The party claiming privilege has the burden of establishing that a communication is protected[.]”); see also State v. Martinez, 2007- NMSC-025, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 713 , 160 P.3d 894 (explaining that when determining the admissibility of evidence, the district court “need only be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the foundational requirement has been met”). 2019Gold Corp. v. United Nuclear Corp., 2007-NMCA-133, ¶ 13 , 143 N.M. 215 , 175 P.3d 309 (“The party claiming privilege has the burden of establishing that a communication is protected[.]”); see also State v. Martinez, 2007- NMSC-025, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 713 , 160 P.3d 894 (explaining that when determining the admissibility of evidence, the district court “need only be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the foundational requirement has been met”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Leon Edward Asberry v. Steve Hargett
green
1 sentence2015Prods., Inc. v. Flanagan, 352 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1965) (finding secondary evidence inadmissible where the plaintiff introduced “little if any evidence” related to the extent of the search for the missing originals); United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that secondary evidence of GPS data was impermissible where the government failed to offer “any record evidence that it would have been impossible or even difficult to download or print out the data” from the device); Cross v. United States, 149 F.3d 1190 , 1998 WL 255054, at *4-5 (10th Cir. 1998) (non- | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.