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 1991–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. Garcia Ex Rel. Estate of Garciagreen2 sentences2024As in Trissell, we must determine “whether the district court erred by concluding that Defendants failed to carry their burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. ¶ 19. {8} Laches is an equitable defense that “prevents litigation of a stale claim where the claim should have been brought at an earlier time and the delay has worked to the prejudice of the party resisting the claim.” Garcia v. Garcia, 1991-NMSC-023 , ¶ 30, 111 N.M. 581 , 808 P.2d 31 . 2024As in Trissell, we must determine “whether the district court erred by concluding that Defendants failed to carry their burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. ¶ 19. {8} Laches is an equitable defense that “prevents litigation of a stale claim where the claim should have been brought at an earlier time and the delay has worked to the prejudice of the party resisting the claim.” Garcia v. Garcia, 1991-NMSC-023 , ¶ 30, 111 N.M. 581 , 808 P.2d 31 . | 4 | 7 |
Cave v. Cavegreen2 sentences1991Cave v. Cave, 81 N.M. 797, 802 , 474 P.2d 480, 485 (1970). 1991Cave v. Cave, 81 N.M. 797, 802 , 474 P.2d 480, 485 (1970). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2024It requires proof of four elements: (1) “[c]onduct on the part of the defendant, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a remedy”; (2) “delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit”; (3) “lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit”; and (4) “injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainan 2024It requires proof of four elements: (1) “[c]onduct on the part of the defendant, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a remedy”; (2) “delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit”; (3) “lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit”; and (4) “injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainan | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pace v. DiGuglielmo
green
2 sentences2007In support of its argument, the State directs us primarily to cases involving the failure of a habeas petitioner to meet a statute of limitations, see Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 574 Pa. 724 , 833 A.2d 719 (2003), or cases involving successive habeas petitions, see Gomez v. U.S. Dist. 2007In support of its argument, the State directs us primarily to cases involving the failure of a habeas petitioner to meet a statute of limitations, see Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 574 Pa. 724 , 833 A.2d 719 (2003), or cases involving successive habeas petitions, see Gomez v. U.S. Dist. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal
green
2 sentences2007In support of its argument, the State directs us primarily to cases involving the failure of a habeas petitioner to meet a statute of limitations, see Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 574 Pa. 724 , 833 A.2d 719 (2003), or cases involving successive habeas petitions, see Gomez v. U.S. Dist. 2007In support of its argument, the State directs us primarily to cases involving the failure of a habeas petitioner to meet a statute of limitations, see Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 574 Pa. 724 , 833 A.2d 719 (2003), or cases involving successive habeas petitions, see Gomez v. U.S. Dist. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.