8 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc.green2 sentences2023Once Defendants made a prima facie showing that the claim was time barred, “a plaintiff attempting to invoke the discovery rule, has the burden of demonstrating that if he or she had diligently investigated the problem he or she would have been unable to discover the facts underlying the claim.” Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., 2006- NMCA-084, ¶ 28, 140 N.M. 111 , 140 P.3d 532 (text only) (internal citation omitted). 2023Once Defendants made a prima facie showing that the claim was time barred, “a plaintiff attempting to invoke the discovery rule, has the burden of demonstrating that if he or she had diligently investigated the problem he or she would have been unable to discover the facts underlying the claim.” Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., 2006- NMCA-084, ¶ 28, 140 N.M. 111 , 140 P.3d 532 (text only) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Martinez v. Showa Denko, K.K.green2 sentences2020“When a defendant makes a prima facie showing that a claim is time barred, a plaintiff attempting to invoke the discovery rule has the burden of demonstrating that if he or she had diligently investigated the problem he or she would have been unable to discover the facts underlying the claim.” Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfill, Inc., 2006-NMCA-084, ¶ 28 , 140 N.M. 111 , 140 P.3d 532 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see also Martinez v. Showa Denko, K.K., 1998-NMCA-111, ¶ 22 , 125 N.M. 615 , 964 P.2d 176 (“Even applying the discovery rule, in order to refute [the 2020“When a defendant makes a prima facie showing that a claim is time barred, a plaintiff attempting to invoke the discovery rule has the burden of demonstrating that if he or she had diligently investigated the problem he or she would have been unable to discover the facts underlying the claim.” Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfill, Inc., 2006-NMCA-084, ¶ 28 , 140 N.M. 111 , 140 P.3d 532 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see also Martinez v. Showa Denko, K.K., 1998-NMCA-111, ¶ 22 , 125 N.M. 615 , 964 P.2d 176 (“Even applying the discovery rule, in order to refute [the | 1 | 3 |
Martinez v. Showa Denko, KKgreen2 sentences2020“When a defendant makes a prima facie showing that a claim is time barred, a plaintiff attempting to invoke the discovery rule has the burden of demonstrating that if he or she had diligently investigated the problem he or she would have been unable to discover the facts underlying the claim.” Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfill, Inc., 2006-NMCA-084, ¶ 28 , 140 N.M. 111 , 140 P.3d 532 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see also Martinez v. Showa Denko, K.K., 1998-NMCA-111, ¶ 22 , 125 N.M. 615 , 964 P.2d 176 (“Even applying the discovery rule, in order to refute [the 2016It seems that irrespective of service of process, O’Brien could have known he 13 was involved in a lawsuit, what the claim was, and that there was a mistake in naming 14 a party involved in the suit. 15 {15} Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing that a claim is barred by the 16 statute of limitations, “a plaintiff attempting to invoke the discovery rule has the 17 burden of ‘demonstrating that if he or she had diligently investigated the problem he 18 or she would have been unable to discover’ the facts underlying the claim.” Butler, 19 2006-NMCA-084, ¶ 28 (quoting Martinez v. Showa Den | 1 | 3 |
Village of Angel Fire v. Board of County Commissionersgreen1 sentence2019Cf. Vill. of Angel Fire, 2010-NMCA-038, ¶¶ 19-25 (holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the element of lack of knowledge necessary for equitable estoppel, where the plaintiff was aware of a breach of agreement within the limitations period but took no action to sue on it until after its expiration, allegedly in reliance upon certain promises made by the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Skipworthgreen1 sentence2012State v. Skipworth, 64 N.M. 7 175, 178 , 326 P.2d 669, 670-71 (1958). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {22} Defendant first argues that the district court erred in denying his proposed instruction defining the term “security.” We review the facts underlying this claim. | 1 | 1 |
Reeder v. Bowmangreen1 sentence2012State v. Skipworth, 64 N.M. 7 175, 178 , 326 P.2d 669, 670-71 (1958). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {22} Defendant first argues that the district court erred in denying his proposed instruction defining the term “security.” We review the facts underlying this claim. | 1 | 1 |
Consolidated Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman Construction Corporationgreen1 sentence1973See also Consolidated Masonry & Fireproof, Inc. v. Wagman Const. Co., 383 F.2d 249 (4th Cir.1967). | 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. Benally
green
2 sentences2012State v. Skipworth, 64 N.M. 7 175, 178 , 326 P.2d 669, 670-71 (1958). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {22} Defendant first argues that the district court erred in denying his proposed instruction defining the term “security.” We review the facts underlying this claim. 2012State v. Skipworth, 64 N.M. 7 175, 178 , 326 P.2d 669, 670-71 (1958). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {22} Defendant first argues that the district court erred in denying his proposed instruction defining the term “security.” We review the facts underlying this claim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc.
green
2 sentences1973This alone was sufficient basis to deny Rule 60(b) relief...." Other federal cases requiring a showing of the facts underlying the defense are: Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4 (9th Cir.1969); Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Nelson v. Coleman Company, 41 F.R.D. 7 (D.S.C. 1966). 1973This alone was sufficient basis to deny Rule 60(b) relief. . . .” Other federal cases requiring a showing of the facts underlying the defense are: Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4 (9th Cir.1969); Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Nelson v. Coleman Company, 41 F.R.D. 7 (D.S.C.1966). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Nelson v. Coleman Co.
green
2 sentences1973This alone was sufficient basis to deny Rule 60(b) relief...." Other federal cases requiring a showing of the facts underlying the defense are: Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4 (9th Cir.1969); Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Nelson v. Coleman Company, 41 F.R.D. 7 (D.S.C. 1966). 1973This alone was sufficient basis to deny Rule 60(b) relief. . . .” Other federal cases requiring a showing of the facts underlying the defense are: Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4 (9th Cir.1969); Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Nelson v. Coleman Company, 41 F.R.D. 7 (D.S.C.1966). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Cole Madsen v. A. J. Bumb, Receiver and Trustee for the Estate of Chase Capital Corporation, Dba Quail Valley Country Club, a California Corporation
green
2 sentences1973This alone was sufficient basis to deny Rule 60(b) relief...." Other federal cases requiring a showing of the facts underlying the defense are: Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4 (9th Cir.1969); Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Nelson v. Coleman Company, 41 F.R.D. 7 (D.S.C. 1966). 1973This alone was sufficient basis to deny Rule 60(b) relief. . . .” Other federal cases requiring a showing of the facts underlying the defense are: Madsen v. Bumb, 419 F.2d 4 (9th Cir.1969); Robinson v. Bantam Books, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Nelson v. Coleman Company, 41 F.R.D. 7 (D.S.C.1966). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.
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.