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 1940–2012 0 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 Ex Rel. Miller v. Tackettgreen2 sentences2012Miller v. Tackett, 68 N.M. 318, 324 , 361 P.2d 724, 728 (1961) (“We recognize the oft-repeated rule that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, but instead, is one of sound judicial discretion that is issued or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, and which is used with great caution in the furtherance of justice, where it is plain that the court, officer, or person against whom it is sought is about to exercise some judicial or quasi judicial power; the exercise of which is clearly unauthorized by law and will result in injury for which no other adequate rem 2012Miller v. Tackett, 68 N.M. 318, 324 , 361 P.2d 724, 728 (1961) (“We recognize the oft-repeated rule that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, but instead, is one of sound judicial discretion that is issued or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, and which is used with great caution in the furtherance of justice, where it is plain that the court, officer, or person against whom it is sought is about to exercise some judicial or quasi judicial power; the exercise of which is clearly unauthorized by law and will result in injury for which no other adequate rem | 2 | 2 |
Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp.green2 sentences2012Regulation Comm'n, 2007-NMSC-053, ¶ 19 , 142 N.M. 533 , 168 P.3d 105 (“Statutory interpretation is an issue of law, which we review de novo.”). {8} It is a well-established and oft-repeated principle in our judicial system that subject matter jurisdiction is “the power to adjudicate the general questions involved in the claim and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case, or the ultimate existence of a valid cause of action.” Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 133, 138 , 899 P.2d 576, 581 (1995); Lyndoe v. D.R. 2012Regulation Comm'n, 2007-NMSC-053, ¶ 19 , 142 N.M. 533 , 168 P.3d 105 (“Statutory interpretation is an issue of law, which we review de novo.”). {8} It is a well-established and oft-repeated principle in our judicial system that subject matter jurisdiction is “the power to adjudicate the general questions involved in the claim and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case, or the ultimate existence of a valid cause of action.” Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 133, 138 , 899 P.2d 576, 581 (1995); Lyndoe v. D.R. | 1 | 1 |
Albuquerque National Bank Ex Rel. Estate of Hegemann v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1966See Albuquerque National Bank v. Johnson, 74 N.M. 69 , 390 P.2d 657 . 1966See Albuquerque National Bank v. Johnson, 74 N.M. 69 , 390 P.2d 657 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cobb v. State Canvassing Board
green
2 sentences2012Miller v. Tackett, 68 N.M. 318, 324 , 361 P.2d 724, 728 (1961) (“We recognize the oft-repeated rule that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, but instead, is one of sound judicial discretion that is issued or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, and which is used with great caution in the furtherance of justice, where it is plain that the court, officer, or person against whom it is sought is about to exercise some judicial or quasi judicial power; the exercise of which is clearly unauthorized by law and will result in injury for which no other adequate rem 2012Miller v. Tackett, 68 N.M. 318, 324 , 361 P.2d 724, 728 (1961) (“We recognize the oft-repeated rule that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, but instead, is one of sound judicial discretion that is issued or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, and which is used with great caution in the furtherance of justice, where it is plain that the court, officer, or person against whom it is sought is about to exercise some judicial or quasi judicial power; the exercise of which is clearly unauthorized by law and will result in injury for which no other adequate rem | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Hammond v. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct., N.M.
green
2 sentences1961We feel it not inappropriate at this point to quote from Hammond v. District Court, supra, the following language which is just as pertinent today as the day it was set down by Justice Bratton speaking for the full court [ 30 N.M. 130 , 228 P. 758 , 761]: “We recognize the oft-repeated rule that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, but instead, is one of sound judicial discretion that is issued or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, and which is used with great caution in the furtherance of justice, where it is plain that the court, officer, or person agai 1961We feel it not inappropriate at this point to quote from Hammond v. District Court, supra, the following language which is just as pertinent today as the day it was set down by Justice Bratton speaking for the full court [ 30 N.M. 130 , 228 P. 758 , 761]: “We recognize the oft-repeated rule that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, but instead, is one of sound judicial discretion that is issued or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, and which is used with great caution in the furtherance of justice, where it is plain that the court, officer, or person agai | 2 | 1940–1961 |
Lyndoe v. D.R. Horton, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Horton, Inc., 2012-NMCA-103, ¶ 12 , 287 P.3d 357 (defining subject matter jurisdiction as the “power of a court to hear and determine cases”). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
green
2 sentences2012Regulation Comm'n, 2007-NMSC-053, ¶ 19 , 142 N.M. 533 , 168 P.3d 105 (“Statutory interpretation is an issue of law, which we review de novo.”). {8} It is a well-established and oft-repeated principle in our judicial system that subject matter jurisdiction is “the power to adjudicate the general questions involved in the claim and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case, or the ultimate existence of a valid cause of action.” Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 133, 138 , 899 P.2d 576, 581 (1995); Lyndoe v. D.R. 2012Regulation Comm'n, 2007-NMSC-053, ¶ 19 , 142 N.M. 533 , 168 P.3d 105 (“Statutory interpretation is an issue of law, which we review de novo.”). {8} It is a well-established and oft-repeated principle in our judicial system that subject matter jurisdiction is “the power to adjudicate the general questions involved in the claim and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case, or the ultimate existence of a valid cause of action.” Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp., 120 N.M. 133, 138 , 899 P.2d 576, 581 (1995); Lyndoe v. D.R. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kotrola v. Kotrola
neutral
2 sentences1968Kotrola v. Kotrola, 79 N.M. 258 , 442 P. 2d 570 , decided June 17, 1968, together with cases therein cited. 1968Kotrola v. Kotrola, 79 N.M. 258 , 442 P. 2d 570 , decided June 17, 1968, together with cases therein cited. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Boggs v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1963McLain v. Haley, 53 N.M. 327 , 207 P.2d 1013 ; Boggs v. Anderson, 72 N.M. 136 , 381 P.2d 419 . 1963McLain v. Haley, 53 N.M. 327 , 207 P.2d 1013 ; Boggs v. Anderson, 72 N.M. 136 , 381 P.2d 419 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
McLain v. Haley
green
2 sentences1963McLain v. Haley, 53 N.M. 327 , 207 P.2d 1013 ; Boggs v. Anderson, 72 N.M. 136 , 381 P.2d 419 . 1963McLain v. Haley, 53 N.M. 327 , 207 P.2d 1013 ; Boggs v. Anderson, 72 N.M. 136 , 381 P.2d 419 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.