8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Santosky v. Kramergreen1 sentence2021See Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754-55 (“The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of fact[-]finding, is to instruct the fact[-]finder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he [or she] should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Bank of America v. Apache Corp.green2 sentences2009This cannot be the function of the rule because, among other reasons, 4 1 it is not an oversight or omission by the presiding district court, and is thus outside of 2 its authority to correct. 3 Further, since Erickson remains valid and binding law on the district court, any 4 decision to waver from that precedent was outside of the district court’s discretion. 5 “The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision 6 invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, 7 irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down 2009This cannot be the function of the rule because, among other reasons, 4 1 it is not an oversight or omission by the presiding district court, and is thus outside of 2 its authority to correct. 3 Further, since Erickson remains valid and binding law on the district court, any 4 decision to waver from that precedent was outside of the district court’s discretion. 5 “The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision 6 invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, 7 irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holtslandergreen2 sentences1989We agree with the analysis of the Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Holtslander, 102 Idaho 306, 310 , 629 P.2d 702, 706 (1981), as to the function of the presumption of prejudice. 1989We agree with the analysis of the Idaho Supreme Court in State v. Holtslander, 102 Idaho 306, 310 , 629 P.2d 702, 706 (1981), as to the function of the presumption of prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Embrey v. Galentingreen2 sentences1987See Embrey v. Galentin, 76 N.M. 719 , 418 P.2d 62 (1966); see also SCRA 1986, 1-051(F); 13-301; 13-2005. 1987See Embrey v. Galentin, 76 N.M. 719 , 418 P.2d 62 (1966); see also SCRA 1986, 1-051(F); 13-301; 13-2005. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Addington v. Texas
green
2 sentences1989In Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979), the United States Supreme Court discussed the function of the standard of proof required to uphold an involuntary commitment to a Texas mental hospital. 1989In Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979), the United States Supreme Court discussed the function of the standard of proof required to uphold an involuntary commitment to a Texas mental hospital. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Stella P.
green
2 sentences2021Children, Youth & Families Department v. Stella P., 1999-NMCA- 100, ¶ 14, 127 N.M. 699 , 986 P.2d 495 (explaining that “proceedings affecting [a parent’s legal relationship to their child] must also protect [their] right to due process”). {48} Further, our application of this preservation exception to Father’s case is, in our view, in harmony with the remedial character of ICWA. 2021Children, Youth & Families Department v. Stella P., 1999-NMCA- 100, ¶ 14, 127 N.M. 699 , 986 P.2d 495 (explaining that “proceedings affecting [a parent’s legal relationship to their child] must also protect [their] right to due process”). {48} Further, our application of this preservation exception to Father’s case is, in our view, in harmony with the remedial character of ICWA. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Work v. State
green
2 sentences2009In Work, the plurality followed Zurla and explicitly rejected the function of the presumption of prejudice as “merely a ‘triggering mechanism’ that necessarily brings into play an inquiry of the other three Barker factors.” Work, 111 N.M. at 147 , 803 P.2d at 236 . 2009In Work, the plurality followed Zurla and explicitly rejected the function of the presumption of prejudice as “merely a ‘triggering mechanism’ that necessarily brings into play an inquiry of the other three Barker factors.” Work, 111 N.M. at 147 , 803 P.2d at 236 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2009This cannot be the function of the rule because, among other reasons, 4 1 it is not an oversight or omission by the presiding district court, and is thus outside of 2 its authority to correct. 3 Further, since Erickson remains valid and binding law on the district court, any 4 decision to waver from that precedent was outside of the district court’s discretion. 5 “The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision 6 invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, 7 irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Infante
green
1 sentence2009This cannot be the function of the rule because, among other reasons, 4 1 it is not an oversight or omission by the presiding district court, and is thus outside of 2 its authority to correct. 3 Further, since Erickson remains valid and binding law on the district court, any 4 decision to waver from that precedent was outside of the district court’s discretion. 5 “The general rule is that a court lower in rank than the court which made the decision 6 invoked as a precedent cannot deviate therefrom and decide contrary to that precedent, 7 irrespective of whether it considers the rule laid down | 1 | 2009–2009 |
N. H. Ranch Co. v. Gann
green
2 sentences1984Ranch Co. v. Gann, 42 N.M. 530 , 82 P.2d 632 (1938): The main function of an exception is to call the attention of the court to the error which it is thought has been committed in order that he may have an opportunity to reconsider it and correct it and avoid miscarriage of justice or a new trial. 1984Ranch Co. v. Gann, 42 N.M. 530 , 82 P.2d 632 (1938): The main function of an exception is to call the attention of the court to the error which it is thought has been committed in order that he may have an opportunity to reconsider it and correct it and avoid miscarriage of justice or a new trial. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.