8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
H-B-S Partnership v. Aircoa Hospitality Services, Inc.green2 sentences2008See H-B-S P’ship v. Aircoa Hospitality Servs., Inc., 2005-NMCA-068, ¶ 34 , 137 N.M. 626 , 114 P.3d 306 (“In reviewing for substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregard evidence or inferences to the contrary.”). {50} Plaintiffs’ second evidentiary issue goes more to the heart of the analysis we have articulated today. 2008See H-B-S P’ship v. Aircoa Hospitality Servs., Inc., 2005-NMCA-068, ¶ 34 , 137 N.M. 626 , 114 P.3d 306 (“In reviewing for substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregard evidence or inferences to the contrary.”). {50} Plaintiffs’ second evidentiary issue goes more to the heart of the analysis we have articulated today. | 2 | 2 |
Olim v. Wakinekonagreen1 sentence2025A protected liberty interest is created 6 when the Legislature places substantive limits on official discretion within a statute. 7 Houidobre, 2025-NMSC-007, ¶ 9 ; Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) 8 (“[A] State creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on 9 official discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan 2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan | 1 | 1 |
Morrow v. Coopergreen2 sentences1997See Krendl, supra, at 2 (corporate entity disregarded and proper parties held liable for the corporation’s actions); Morrow v. Cooper, 113 N.M. 246, 249 , 824 P.2d 1048, 1051 (Ct. App.1991) (individual liability imposed when corporate veil is pierced)/ Since this case involves Coffman’s primary rather than secondary liability, the absence of a finding that the corporation is liable for punitive damages is of no significance. 1997See Krendl, supra, at 2 (corporate entity disregarded and proper parties held liable for the corporation’s actions); Morrow v. Cooper, 113 N.M. 246, 249 , 824 P.2d 1048, 1051 (Ct. App.1991) (individual liability imposed when corporate veil is pierced)/ Since this case involves Coffman’s primary rather than secondary liability, the absence of a finding that the corporation is liable for punitive damages is of no significance. | 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. Rowell
green
2 sentences2014Therefore, the warrantless search of the trunk was justified if there were “case-specific exigent circumstances that make it reasonable to conduct the search without first going to a judicial officer and obtaining a search warrant.” See id. {29} The majority opinion correctly points out that judgment is at the heart of the inquiry. 2014Therefore, the warrantless search of the trunk was justified if there were “case-specific exigent circumstances that make it reasonable to conduct the search without first going to a judicial officer and obtaining a search warrant.” See id. {29} The majority opinion correctly points out that judgment is at the heart of the inquiry. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Houidobre
green
1 sentence2025A protected liberty interest is created 6 when the Legislature places substantive limits on official discretion within a statute. 7 Houidobre, 2025-NMSC-007, ¶ 9 ; Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) 8 (“[A] State creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on 9 official discretion. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Curley
green
2 sentences2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan 2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Emblem v. Emblem
neutral
2 sentences1954Nothing in Emblem v. Emblem, 1953, 57 N.M. 495 , 260 P.2d 693 , can bring comfort to appellant because the circumstances in that case and those before us are so dissimilar. 1954Nothing in Emblem v. Emblem, 1953, 57 N.M. 495 , 260 P.2d 693 , can bring comfort to appellant because the circumstances in that case and those before us are so dissimilar. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.