retroactivity rule in New Mexico

2024See Figueroa v. THI of N.M. at Casa Arena Blanca, LLC, 2013-NMCA-077, ¶ 41 , 306 P.3d 480 (holding, where no new rule was created, that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption of retroactivity, without considering the other two factors of the retroactivity test).

2021See Figueroa v. THI of N.M. at Casa Arena Blanca, LLC, 2013-NMCA-077, ¶ 41 , 306 P.3d 480 (holding, where no new rule was created, that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption of retroactivity, without considering the other two factors of the retroactivity test).

2021See Beavers, 1994-NMSC-094 , ¶ 23 (“[T]he decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.”); Figueroa v. THI of N.M. at Casa Arena Blanca, LLC, 2013-NMCA-077, ¶ 41 , 306 P.3d 480 (holding that, where no new rule was created, the defendant failed to overcome the presumption of retroactivity, without considering the other two factors of the retroactivity test); Edenburn, 2013-NMCA-045, ¶ 31 (explain

2021Dep’t of Health, 2013-NMCA-045, ¶ 29 , 299 P.3d 424 .

2012See State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 30 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (“It is a fundamental principle that we cannot rewrite or add language to a statute in order to make it constitutional.

2012See State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 30 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (“It is a fundamental principle that we cannot rewrite or add language to a statute in order to make it constitutional.

2021As this Court has recognized, where, as in Gelinas, the result was foreseeable as a matter of statutory interpretation of a statute’s explicit language, see 2020-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 (giving effect to the clear language of Section 7-1-25 and Rule 12-601), it will not be considered a new rule for purposes of a retroactivity analysis.

2010Id. at 393 , 881 P.2d at 1378 (declining to follow the federal rule); see also Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 86, 90 , 113 S.Ct. 2510 , 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (establishing the retroactivity rule for federal cases).

2010Id. at 393 , 881 P.2d at 1378 (declining to follow the federal rule); see also Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 86, 90 , 113 S.Ct. 2510 , 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (establishing the retroactivity rule for federal cases).

2010Id. at 393 , 881 P.2d at 1378 (declining to follow the federal rule); see also Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 86, 90 , 113 S.Ct. 2510 , 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (establishing the retroactivity rule for federal cases).

2010Id. at 393 , 881 P.2d at 1378 (declining to follow the federal rule); see also Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 86, 90 , 113 S.Ct. 2510 , 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (establishing the retroactivity rule for federal cases).

1994See, e.g., Lopez, 98 N.M. at 632 , 651 P.2d at 1276 (applying decision to parties in case “for having afforded us the opportunity to change an outmoded and unjust rule of law” and to parties in future cases “in which the damages and injuries arise after the date of the mandate in this case”).

1994See, e.g., Lopez, 98 N.M. at 632 , 651 P.2d at 1276 (applying decision to parties in case “for having afforded us the opportunity to change an outmoded and unjust rule of law” and to parties in future cases “in which the damages and injuries arise after the date of the mandate in this case”).