general common law rule (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

general common law rule in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2023 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Moody v. Delta Western, Inc.green
alaska · 2002 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See Moody, 38 P.3d at 1140-41 .

2006See Moody, 38 P.3d at 1140-41 .

22
New Mexico Department of Labor v. Valdez (In Re Valdez)green
nmb · 1992 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See Bd. of Educ. v. Standhardt, 80 N.M. 543, 549 , 458 P.2d 795, 801 (1969); see also Valdez v. Valdez (In re Valdez), 136 B.R. 874, 876 (Bankr.D.N.M. 1992).

2006The general common law rule, as expressed in Standhardt, is that statutes of limitations do not run against the state unless the statute expressly includes the state or does so by clear implications, but will run against county and other political subdivisions, including school districts, unless such may be deemed to be an arm of the state because of the particular governmental functions or purposes involved. 80 N.M. at 549 , 458 P.2d at 801 ; see also In re Valdez, 136 B.R. at 876 . {5} In Standhardt, our Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a school board could bring an action aga

11
Board of Education, School District 16 v. Standhardtgreen
nm · 1969 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006The general common law rule, as expressed in Standhardt, is that statutes of limitations do not run against the state unless the statute expressly includes the state or does so by clear implications, but will run against county and other political subdivisions, including school districts, unless such may be deemed to be an arm of the state because of the particular governmental functions or purposes involved. 80 N.M. at 549 , 458 P.2d at 801 ; see also In re Valdez, 136 B.R. at 876 . {5} In Standhardt, our Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a school board could bring an action aga

2006The general common law rule, as expressed in Standhardt, is that statutes of limitations do not run against the state unless the statute expressly includes the state or does so by clear implications, but will run against county and other political subdivisions, including school districts, unless such may be deemed to be an arm of the state because of the particular governmental functions or purposes involved. 80 N.M. at 549 , 458 P.2d at 801 ; see also In re Valdez, 136 B.R. at 876 . {5} In Standhardt, our Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a school board could bring an action aga

11
Associates Loan Company v. Walkergreen
nm · 1966 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998See Associates Loan Co. v. Walker, 76 N.M. 520, 522-23 , 416 P.2d 529, 530-31 (1966); see also § 55-9-318 cmt. 1. 22.Hasse asserts that it has at least two defenses against Hilfiker’s claim for payment: (1) Hilfiker’s delegation to Gosney of its obligation to perform under the purchase order was in breach of paragraph five of the Purchase Order; and (2) Hilfiker has a duty under paragraph one and three of the Purchase Order to pay, or assure payment to, its materialmen and suppliers before Hasse is required to pay Hilfiker. 23.

1998See Associates Loan Co. v. Walker, 76 N.M. 520, 522-23 , 416 P.2d 529, 530-31 (1966); see also § 55-9-318 cmt. 1. 22.Hasse asserts that it has at least two defenses against Hilfiker’s claim for payment: (1) Hilfiker’s delegation to Gosney of its obligation to perform under the purchase order was in breach of paragraph five of the Purchase Order; and (2) Hilfiker has a duty under paragraph one and three of the Purchase Order to pay, or assure payment to, its materialmen and suppliers before Hasse is required to pay Hilfiker. 23.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Flores v. Baca green
nm · 1994
2 sentences

2023Though this specific factual context has not been 18 dealt with before in New Mexico, we conclude that such a duty fits squarely within 19 the law expressed in UJI 13-1604 and the common law duty of service providers. 20 We explain. 13 1 {25} New Mexico recognizes the general common law rule that persons providing 2 services owe a duty that “arises both from a common-law duty to exercise ordinary 3 care for the safety of the person of others and from an implied term of the contract 4 to render services with reasonable skill and care.” Flores v. Baca, 1994-NMSC-021 , 5 ¶¶ 9, 10, 117 N.M. 306 ,

2023Though this specific factual context has not been 18 dealt with before in New Mexico, we conclude that such a duty fits squarely within 19 the law expressed in UJI 13-1604 and the common law duty of service providers. 20 We explain. 13 1 {25} New Mexico recognizes the general common law rule that persons providing 2 services owe a duty that “arises both from a common-law duty to exercise ordinary 3 care for the safety of the person of others and from an implied term of the contract 4 to render services with reasonable skill and care.” Flores v. Baca, 1994-NMSC-021 , 5 ¶¶ 9, 10, 117 N.M. 306 ,

22023–2023
Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Ctr. Assoc. green
nm · 2014
2 sentences

2023Rodriguez, 2014-NMSC-014, ¶ 1 .

2023Rodriguez, 2014-NMSC-014, ¶ 1 .

22023–2023
Christus St. Vincent Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Duarte-Afar green
nmctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2018And if the common law's treatment of indemnification claims as "separate and distinct from the underlying tort" were dispositive of the question of the MMA's application to a claim, Duarte-Afara would not have held that the MMA's restrictions and limitations apply to a hospital's indemnification claim against doctors based on "the gravamen of the claim [a]s predicated upon the allegation of professional negligence[,]" notwithstanding the "separate and distinct" nature of indemnification claims under the common law. 2011-NMCA-112 , ¶ 18, 267 P.3d 70 . {37} In light of these precedents, we canno

12018–2018
State Ex Rel. Helman v. Gallegos green
nm · 1994
2 sentences

2018As discussed, we must perform our "high duty and responsibility ... to facilitate and promote the [L]egislature's accomplishment of its purpose-especially when such action involves correcting an apparent legislative mistake[,]" Helman , 1994-NMSC-023 , ¶ 25, 117 N.M. 346 , 871 P.2d 1352 , "even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others[,]" id. ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {35} Leger also argues that the indemnification claim falls outside Section 41-5-12's prohibition on assignment because it is not, and is separate and distinct from, a p

2018As discussed, we must perform our "high duty and responsibility ... to facilitate and promote the [L]egislature's accomplishment of its purpose-especially when such action involves correcting an apparent legislative mistake[,]" Helman , 1994-NMSC-023 , ¶ 25, 117 N.M. 346 , 871 P.2d 1352 , "even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others[,]" id. ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {35} Leger also argues that the indemnification claim falls outside Section 41-5-12's prohibition on assignment because it is not, and is separate and distinct from, a p

12018–2018
Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green
nm · 1999
2 sentences

2010See UJI 13-1827; Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1999-NMSC-013, ¶ 47 , 127 N.M. 47 , 976 P.2d 999 .

2010See UJI 13-1827; Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1999-NMSC-013, ¶ 47 , 127 N.M. 47 , 976 P.2d 999 .

12010–2010

Where else courts name it

CA 99 (1912–2026) TX 72 (1934–2025) NY 38 (1854–2026) NC 32 (1969–2021) TN 24 (1912–2025) WA 24 (1952–2025) CT 24 (1887–2025) IL 22 (1909–2019) MN 19 (1967–2026) MO 16 (1900–2023) UT 16 (1987–2020) IN 15 (1903–2015) NJ 14 (1965–2021) MI 13 (1965–2025) MD 12 (1988–2024) PA 12 (1947–2024) AZ 11 (1969–2023) OH 11 (1971–2018) FL 11 (1958–2021) OR 10 (1975–2019) AR 9 (1938–2015) MA 9 (1932–2008) WV 9 (1982–2022) WI 9 (1882–2004) GA 8 (1902–2020) AL 8 (1968–2018) NM 8 (1998–2023) IA 7 (1902–2012) DE 7 (1927–2019) OK 7 (1992–2014) MT 6 (1969–2024) NH 6 (1881–2018) AK 5 (1977–2022) KS 5 (1984–2021) CO 5 (1978–2019) VT 4 (1980–2021) MS 4 (1986–1999) SC 4 (1984–2023) VA 4 (1987–2018) HI 4 (1971–2017) ND 3 (1992–2015) RI 3 (1992–2004) ID 3 (1986–2012) ME 3 (2005–2017) LA 2 (1908–1975) NE 2 (1922–1956) WY 2 (2004–2015) KY 2 (1929–1959)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check