Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cobos v. Dona Ana County Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2011However, we concluded that the tenant was not a third-party beneficiary on the grounds that a clause in the contract stated: “Nothing in this Contract shall be construed as creating any right of the Family or other third party . . . to enforce any provision of this Contract, or to assert any claim against HUD, the PHA or the Owner under this Contract.” Id. at 25 , 908 P.2d at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011However, we concluded that the tenant was not a third-party beneficiary on the grounds that a clause in the contract stated: “Nothing in this Contract shall be construed as creating any right of the Family or other third party . . . to enforce any provision of this Contract, or to assert any claim against HUD, the PHA or the Owner under this Contract.” Id. at 25 , 908 P.2d at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Societyred2 sentences1999Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 257-59, 265-66 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (rejecting the private attorney general doctrine on the grounds that the doctrine was irreconcilable with express provisions of the federal fee bill and that the doctrine did not accord with any of the traditional inherent and equitable exceptions that justify awards of attorney fees in spite of the fee bill); 1 Mary Francis Derfner & Arthur D. 1999Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 257-59, 265-66 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (rejecting the private attorney general doctrine on the grounds that the doctrine was irreconcilable with express provisions of the federal fee bill and that the doctrine did not accord with any of the traditional inherent and equitable exceptions that justify awards of attorney fees in spite of the fee bill); 1 Mary Francis Derfner & Arthur D. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2024In support of this ruling, the Court of Appeals incorrectly 16 1 summarized Juarez as “concluding that the plaintiff’s challenge to the delegation 2 clause on the same grounds as her challenge to the agreement as a whole was not a 3 specific challenge.” Id. 4 {21} More accurately, Juarez relevantly held that the plaintiff’s argument 5 “challenging the contract as a whole” was “not clearly directed against the validity 6 of the delegation clause” as a discrete matter. 2024In support of this ruling, the Court of Appeals incorrectly summarized Juarez as “concluding that the plaintiff’s challenge to the delegation clause on the same grounds as her challenge to the agreement as a whole was not a specific challenge.” Id. {21} More accurately, Juarez relevantly held that the plaintiff’s argument “challenging the contract as a whole” was “not clearly directed against the validity of the delegation clause” as a discrete matter. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Little v. Jacobs
green
1 sentence2025Jacobs, 2014-NMCA-105, ¶ 4 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pina v. Espinoza
green
1 sentence2021The Rules of Civil Procedure provide a wide range of options to parties looking to support objections and assertions of privilege, including good faith attempts to resolve discovery disputes, privilege logs, in camera review, protective orders, or other means “as required by the circumstances of a particular case.” Piña, 2001-NMCA-055, ¶ 28 ; id. ¶ 20 (stating that “in camera inspection has its place in the scheme established by Rule 1-026(B)”); see Rule 1-026(C) (outlining the procedures for protective orders); Rule 1-026, comm. cmt. (“It is desirable that a party comply with the provisions o | 1 | 2021–2021 |
James Oxley v. Ralston Purina Company
green
1 sentence1986This same query was addressed in Oxley v. Ralston Purina Co., 349 F.2d 328 (6th Cir.1965). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Duran v. New Jersey Zinc Co.
neutral
2 sentences1971Section 59-10-13.6 (A), N.M.S.A., 1953 (Supp.1969) (Laws 1959, ch. 67, § 10; amended, Laws 1963, ch. 269, § 6 and Laws 1967, ch. 151, § 1) Duran v. The New Jersey Zinc Company, 82 N.M. 742 , 487 P.2d 170 (Ct.App.1971). 1971Section 59-10-13.6 (A), N.M.S.A., 1953 (Supp.1969) (Laws 1959, ch. 67, § 10; amended, Laws 1963, ch. 269, § 6 and Laws 1967, ch. 151, § 1) Duran v. The New Jersey Zinc Company, 82 N.M. 742 , 487 P.2d 170 (Ct.App.1971). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.