8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Morrogreen1 sentence2022Cf. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 23 (“When there is a long history regarding the unit of prosecution under a particular statute, as there is with the single-larceny doctrine, then principles of stare decisis in statutory interpretation argue strongly for continuing that interpretation, even when the tools—that is, canons—of statutory interpretation have evolved with respect to analyzing the question.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fraziergreen1 sentence2014See Frazier, 2007-NMSC-032, ¶¶ 19, 23 (stating that the unitary conduct issue is dependent on what the Legislature intended as the unit of conviction and that, ultimately, the space-time analysis of a defendant’s criminal acts informs the legislative intent analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Herron v. Stategreen2 sentences1999As recognized in Herron v. State, 111 N.M. 357, 359 , 805 P.2d 624, 626 (1991), “[t]he issue, though essentially constitutional, becomes one of statutory construction.” In Herron, the Supreme Court adopted a legislative intent analysis and guidelines for determining distinctiveness factors under the facts of a case when a defendant has been charged with multiple violations of a single statute. 1999As recognized in Herron v. State, 111 N.M. 357, 359 , 805 P.2d 624, 626 (1991), “[t]he issue, though essentially constitutional, becomes one of statutory construction.” In Herron, the Supreme Court adopted a legislative intent analysis and guidelines for determining distinctiveness factors under the facts of a case when a defendant has been charged with multiple violations of a single statute. | 1 | 1 |
Wittkowski Ex Rel. Wittkowski v. State, Corrections Departmentgreen2 sentences1988See Wittkowski v. State, 103 N.M. 526 , 529 n. 1, 710 P.2d 93 , 96 n. 1 (Ct.App.), cert. quashed, 103 N.M. 446 , 708 P.2d 1047 (1985) overruled on other grounds, Silva v. State, 106 N.M. 472 , 745 P.2d 380 (1987); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 117 (1963). 1988See Wittkowski v. State, 103 N.M. 526 , 529 n. 1, 710 P.2d 93 , 96 n. 1 (Ct.App.), cert. quashed, 103 N.M. 446 , 708 P.2d 1047 (1985) overruled on other grounds, Silva v. State, 106 N.M. 472 , 745 P.2d 380 (1987); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 117 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Silva v. Stategreen2 sentences1988See Wittkowski v. State, 103 N.M. 526 , 529 n. 1, 710 P.2d 93 , 96 n. 1 (Ct.App.), cert. quashed, 103 N.M. 446 , 708 P.2d 1047 (1985) overruled on other grounds, Silva v. State, 106 N.M. 472 , 745 P.2d 380 (1987); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 117 (1963). 1988See Wittkowski v. State, 103 N.M. 526 , 529 n. 1, 710 P.2d 93 , 96 n. 1 (Ct.App.), cert. quashed, 103 N.M. 446 , 708 P.2d 1047 (1985) overruled on other grounds, Silva v. State, 106 N.M. 472 , 745 P.2d 380 (1987); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 117 (1963). | 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. Alvarez-Lopez
green
2 sentences2022We have explained that “the [single- larceny] doctrine is a canon of construction used when the Legislature’s intent regarding multiple punishments is ambiguous.” Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 43 . 2022We have 16 explained that “the [single-larceny] doctrine is a canon of construction used when 17 the Legislature’s intent regarding multiple punishments is ambiguous.” Alvarez- 18 Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 43 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Gonzaga University v. Doe
green
2 sentences2012However, this particular legislative intent inquiry is the same in our context because, in both situations, a court has the task of analyzing whether the Legislature intended to create or deny a private remedy. {36} In Gonzaga University, the Supreme Court held that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act’s (FERPA) non-disclosure provisions failed to confer enforceable rights as the provisions “entirely lack the sort of ‘rights-creating’ language critical to showing the requisite congressional intent to create new rights.” 536 U.S. at 287 . 2011However, this particular legislative intent inquiry is the same in our context because, in both situations, a court has the task of analyzing whether the Legislature intended to create or deny a private remedy. {36} In Gonzaga University, the Supreme Court held that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act's (FERPA) non-disclosure provisions failed to confer enforceable rights as the provisions "entirely lack the sort of `rights-creating' language critical to showing the requisite congressional intent to create new rights." 536 U.S. at 287 , 122 S.Ct. 2268 . | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Watkins
green
2 sentences2015Defendant’s reliance on State v. Watkins, 2008-NMCA-060 , 144 N.M. 66 , 183 P.3d 951 , as evidence of our application of the doctrine in a unit of prosecution case, is misplaced. 2015Defendant’s reliance on State v. Watkins, 2008-NMCA-060 , 144 N.M. 66 , 183 P.3d 951 , as evidence of our application of the doctrine in a unit of prosecution case, is misplaced. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.