8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2016The exclusion fails rational basis review {25} In Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶ 32 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 , we adopted a rational basis test different than the federal rational basis test. 2016Indeed, if such exceptions and carve-outs to the historical national public policy of deterring suicide properly exist, they are certainly borne of the legislature and not the judiciary. 26 {57} In Trujillo, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 27, 30, 32 , we adopted a rational basis test different than the federal rational basis test. | 2 | 4 |
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.green2 sentences2016See, e.g., City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985). {26} However, for claims under the United States Constitution, we still follow the federal rational basis test, which only requires a reviewing court to divine “the existence of a conceivable rational basis” to uphold legislation against a constitutional challenge. 2016See, e.g., City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985). {26} However, for claims under the United States Constitution, we still follow the federal rational basis test, which only requires a reviewing court to divine “the existence of a conceivable rational basis” to uphold legislation against a constitutional challenge. | 2 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. Brand West Dairygreen2 sentences2025See Rodriguez, 2016-NMSC-029 , ¶ 26. 2021Dairy, 2016-NMSC-029 , ¶ 26, 378 P.3d 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]hose attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.” Fed. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wagner v. AGW CONSULTANTS
green
2 sentences2022“To successfully challenge the statute under this standard of review, [the challenger] must demonstrate that . . . the legislation is not supported by a ‘firm legal rationale’ or evidence in the record.” Wagner v. AGW Consultants, 2005-NMSC- 016, ¶ 24, 137 N.M. 734 , 114 P.3d 1050 . 2022“To successfully challenge the statute under this standard of review, [the challenger] must demonstrate that . . . the legislation is not supported by a ‘firm legal rationale’ or evidence in the record.” Wagner v. AGW Consultants, 2005-NMSC- 016, ¶ 24, 137 N.M. 734 , 114 P.3d 1050 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Kane v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences2016Kane v. City of Albuquerque, 2015-NMSC-027, ¶ 17 , 358 P.3d 249 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2016Kane v. City of Albuquerque, 2015-NMSC-027, ¶ 17 , 358 P.3d 249 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
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.