8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Celaya v. Hallgreen2 sentences2024See Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005 , ¶ 28 12 (“Whether an employee is acting within the scope of duties is a question of fact.”). 13 Nonetheless, summary judgment may still be properly granted “if, from the facts 14 presented, only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn.” Medina v. Fuller, 1999- 15 NMCA-011, ¶ 22, 126 N.M. 460 , 971 P.2d 851 (internal quotation marks and 16 citation omitted). 2024See Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005, ¶ 28 (“Whether an employee is acting within the scope of duties is a question of fact.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. DeMarygreen2 sentences1997See State v. Fuentes, 119 N.M. 104, 106-07 , 888 P.2d 986, 988-89 (Ct.App.1994) (discussing the fact-based test of State v. DeMary, 99 N.M. 177 , 655 P.2d 1021 (1982), and noting it has been restricted by Swafford v. State to the propriety of instructions on lesser included offenses). 29. 1997See State v. Fuentes, 119 N.M. 104, 106-07 , 888 P.2d 986, 988-89 (Ct.App.1994) (discussing the fact-based test of State v. DeMary, 99 N.M. 177 , 655 P.2d 1021 (1982), and noting it has been restricted by Swafford v. State to the propriety of instructions on lesser included offenses). 29. | 1 | 2 |
Medina v. Fullergreen2 sentences2024See Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005 , ¶ 28 12 (“Whether an employee is acting within the scope of duties is a question of fact.”). 13 Nonetheless, summary judgment may still be properly granted “if, from the facts 14 presented, only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn.” Medina v. Fuller, 1999- 15 NMCA-011, ¶ 22, 126 N.M. 460 , 971 P.2d 851 (internal quotation marks and 16 citation omitted). 2024See Celaya, 2004-NMSC-005 , ¶ 28 12 (“Whether an employee is acting within the scope of duties is a question of fact.”). 13 Nonetheless, summary judgment may still be properly granted “if, from the facts 14 presented, only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn.” Medina v. Fuller, 1999- 15 NMCA-011, ¶ 22, 126 N.M. 460 , 971 P.2d 851 (internal quotation marks and 16 citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manzanaresgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Manzanares, 121 N.M. 798, 800 , 918 P.2d 714, 716 (1996) (indicating that a motion to protect speedy trial rights is a fact-based analysis that must be presented to the trial court before it can be considered on appeal). 2005See State v. Manzanares, 121 N.M. 798, 800 , 918 P.2d 714, 716 (1996) (indicating that a motion to protect speedy trial rights is a fact-based analysis that must be presented to the trial court before it can be considered on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fuentesgreen2 sentences1997See State v. Fuentes, 119 N.M. 104, 106-07 , 888 P.2d 986, 988-89 (Ct.App.1994) (discussing the fact-based test of State v. DeMary, 99 N.M. 177 , 655 P.2d 1021 (1982), and noting it has been restricted by Swafford v. State to the propriety of instructions on lesser included offenses). 29. 1997See State v. Fuentes, 119 N.M. 104, 106-07 , 888 P.2d 986, 988-89 (Ct.App.1994) (discussing the fact-based test of State v. DeMary, 99 N.M. 177 , 655 P.2d 1021 (1982), and noting it has been restricted by Swafford v. State to the propriety of instructions on lesser included offenses). 29. | 1 | 1 |
Swafford v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Our Supreme Court has stated that it “disagree[s] with application of the DeMary test in the multiple punishment context and confine[s] that test to determining the propriety of jury verdict alternatives.” Swafford, 112 N.M. at 12 , 810 P.2d at 1232 (restricting the DeMary test to lesser included offenses and the right to a jury instruction on each). 1994Our Supreme Court has stated that it “disagree[s] with application of the DeMary test in the multiple punishment context and confine[s] that test to determining the propriety of jury verdict alternatives.” Swafford, 112 N.M. at 12 , 810 P.2d at 1232 (restricting the DeMary test to lesser included offenses and the right to a jury instruction on each). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hurlocker v. Medina
green
2 sentences2013The analysis “requires a fact-based inquiry depending on the language of the deed and surrounding circumstances.” Id. 2013The analysis “requires a fact-based inquiry depending on the language of the deed and surrounding circumstances.” Id. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Jason L.
green
2 sentences2019Jason L. , 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 19, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . 2019Jason L. , 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 19, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.