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 1955–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ken's Foods, Inc. v. Ken's Steak House, Inc.green1 sentence2018Gold Corp., 2007-NMCA- 133, ¶¶ 16, 18, 24; see Ken’s Foods, Inc. v. Ken’s Steak House, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 89, 93 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLCgreen1 sentence2007“The key consideration is that the nature of the interest be identical, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial.” Duplan, 397 F.Supp. at 1172, 1185 (stating that the overlap of a commercial interest does not negate an existing legal interest and that the district court will apply the guidelines as it performs an in camera inspection of each document); see also Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 189, 190 (D.Del.2004) (concluding that the common interest doctrine did not apply where the documents were disclosed during negotiations with a buyer, since the disclosures were no | 1 | 1 |
In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigationgreen2 sentences2007“The key consideration is that the nature of the interest be identical, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial.” Duplan, 397 F.Supp. at 1172, 1185 (stating that the overlap of a commercial interest does not negate an existing legal interest and that the district court will apply the guidelines as it performs an in camera inspection of each document); see also Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 189, 190 (D.Del.2004) (concluding that the common interest doctrine did not apply where the documents were disclosed during negotiations with a buyer, since the disclosures were no 2007“The key consideration is that the nature of the interest be identical, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial.” Duplan, 397 F.Supp. at 1172, 1185 (stating that the overlap of a commercial interest does not negate an existing legal interest and that the district court will apply the guidelines as it performs an in camera inspection of each document); see also Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 189, 190 (D.Del.2004) (concluding that the common interest doctrine did not apply where the documents were disclosed during negotiations with a buyer, since the disclosures were no | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Martin Schwimmergreen2 sentences2007Sch., 2005-NMSC-028, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 331 , 120 P.3d 413 (“Federal case law is certainly informative, but only to the extent it is persuasive.”). {16} Also known as the joint defense privilege, the common interest rule protects the “confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel.” United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1989). 2007Schwimmer, 892 F.2d at 243-44 (holding that the protection provided by the privilege extends to communications made in confidence to an accountant assisting lawyers who were conducting a joint defense on behalf of the communicating clients in regard to the government’s initial investigation of the clients). | 1 | 1 |
Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp.green2 sentences2007“In interpreting [rules], we seek to give effect to the [enacting authority’s] intent, and in determining intent we look to the language used and consider the [rule’s] history and background.” Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1996-NMSC-038 , 121 N.M. 764, 768-69 , 918 P.2d 350, 354-55 (1996), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2000-NMSC-010 , 128 N.M. 739 , 998 P.2d 575 . {51} The language of Rule 1-042(A) provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial.” The issue of whether an appeal is a “p 2007“In interpreting [rules], we seek to give effect to the [enacting authority’s] intent, and in determining intent we look to the language used and consider the [rule’s] history and background.” Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1996-NMSC-038 , 121 N.M. 764, 768-69 , 918 P.2d 350, 354-55 (1996), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2000-NMSC-010 , 128 N.M. 739 , 998 P.2d 575 . {51} The language of Rule 1-042(A) provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial.” The issue of whether an appeal is a “p | 1 | 1 |
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.green1 sentence2007“The key consideration is that the nature of the interest be identical, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial.” Duplan, 397 F.Supp. at 1172, 1185 (stating that the overlap of a commercial interest does not negate an existing legal interest and that the district court will apply the guidelines as it performs an in camera inspection of each document); see also Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 189, 190 (D.Del.2004) (concluding that the common interest doctrine did not apply where the documents were disclosed during negotiations with a buyer, since the disclosures were no | 1 | 1 |
George W. Whiteman v. Elsoyd Pitriegreen1 sentence1973See Whiteman v. Pitrie, 220 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1955). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Albuquerque Journal v. Board of Educ.
green
2 sentences2024Assuming that Horton’s 11 affidavits establish a preexisting or contemporaneous agreement of the parties, 12 Horton does not demonstrate that the agreement reflected a “shared identical legal 13 interest” or that the protected communications were each “made during the course 14 of a joint defense effort between the resisting party and the third party and in 15 furtherance of that effort.” See id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 16 As a result, Horton did not meet “the burden of proving all elements of the privilege 17 as to each communication claimed to be privileged.” See id. 2024Assuming that Horton’s 11 affidavits establish a preexisting or contemporaneous agreement of the parties, 12 Horton does not demonstrate that the agreement reflected a “shared identical legal 13 interest” or that the protected communications were each “made during the course 14 of a joint defense effort between the resisting party and the third party and in 15 furtherance of that effort.” See id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 16 As a result, Horton did not meet “the burden of proving all elements of the privilege 17 as to each communication claimed to be privileged.” See id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Handa
green
2 sentences2009“Furthermore, the doctrine of 4 fundamental error has no application in cases where the defendant, by his own actions, 5 invites error.” Id. at 46 , 897 P.2d at 233 . 6 {23} During the joint hearing, Defendant informed the district court that it properly 7 could rely on statements Defendant had made during his psychiatric evaluations with 8 Dr. Kelly to find that Defendant had killed Victim. 2009“Furthermore, the doctrine of 4 fundamental error has no application in cases where the defendant, by his own actions, 5 invites error.” Id. at 46 , 897 P.2d at 233 . 6 {23} During the joint hearing, Defendant informed the district court that it properly 7 could rely on statements Defendant had made during his psychiatric evaluations with 8 Dr. Kelly to find that Defendant had killed Victim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2007“In interpreting [rules], we seek to give effect to the [enacting authority’s] intent, and in determining intent we look to the language used and consider the [rule’s] history and background.” Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1996-NMSC-038 , 121 N.M. 764, 768-69 , 918 P.2d 350, 354-55 (1996), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2000-NMSC-010 , 128 N.M. 739 , 998 P.2d 575 . {51} The language of Rule 1-042(A) provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial.” The issue of whether an appeal is a “p 2007“In interpreting [rules], we seek to give effect to the [enacting authority’s] intent, and in determining intent we look to the language used and consider the [rule’s] history and background.” Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1996-NMSC-038 , 121 N.M. 764, 768-69 , 918 P.2d 350, 354-55 (1996), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 2000-NMSC-010 , 128 N.M. 739 , 998 P.2d 575 . {51} The language of Rule 1-042(A) provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial.” The issue of whether an appeal is a “p | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Breen v. Carlsbad Municipal Schools
green
2 sentences2007Sch., 2005-NMSC-028, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 331 , 120 P.3d 413 (“Federal case law is certainly informative, but only to the extent it is persuasive.”). {16} Also known as the joint defense privilege, the common interest rule protects the “confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel.” United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1989). 2007Sch., 2005-NMSC-028, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 331 , 120 P.3d 413 (“Federal case law is certainly informative, but only to the extent it is persuasive.”). {16} Also known as the joint defense privilege, the common interest rule protects the “confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel.” United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1989). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Kassis
neutral
2 sentences1956Counsel cite People v. Kassis, 145 Misc. 493 , 259 N.Y.S. 339 , holding, and properly we think, that a challenge made by one of several co-defendants must be regarded as a joint challenge, unless the other defendants dissent or object. 1956Counsel cite People v. Kassis, 145 Misc. 493 , 259 N.Y.S. 339 , holding, and properly we think, that a challenge made by one of several co-defendants must be regarded as a joint challenge, unless the other defendants dissent or object. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
H. B. Cartwright & Bro. v. United States Bank & Trust Co.
neutral
1 sentence1955Cartwright & Bro. v. United States Bank & Trust Co., 23 N.M. 82 , 167 P. 436 ) and entered a joint claim to possession and right to possession of the car. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.