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 1961–2024 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. Jonesgreen2 sentences1996The usual proper purposes for admitting other misconduct evidence are listed in the second sentence: "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." The State argues that the list is not exclusive; it is intended only to be illustrative as evidenced by the language of the rule that other misconduct evidence may "be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, [etc.]." (Emphasis added.) See State v. Jones, 120 N.M. 185, 188 , 899 P.2d 1139, 1142 (Ct.App.) ("New Mexico allows use of other bad acts for many reasons, including tho 1996The usual proper purposes for admitting other misconduct evidence are listed in the second sentence: "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." The State argues that the list is not exclusive; it is intended only to be illustrative as evidenced by the language of the rule that other misconduct evidence may "be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, [etc.]." (Emphasis added.) See State v. Jones, 120 N.M. 185, 188 , 899 P.2d 1139, 1142 (Ct.App.) ("New Mexico allows use of other bad acts for many reasons, including tho | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nakashima v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2024Co., 2007-NMCA- 7 027, ¶ 12, 141 N.M. 239 , 153 P.3d 664 (explaining that an integration clause replaces 8 or supersedes prior and contemporaneous contracts concerning the same transaction, 9 not subsequent agreements). 10 {21} Seller’s claim, that this clause is an integration clause, superseding the 11 Buyer’s Agreement, turns on the second sentence of the clause. 2024Co., 2007-NMCA- 7 027, ¶ 12, 141 N.M. 239 , 153 P.3d 664 (explaining that an integration clause replaces 8 or supersedes prior and contemporaneous contracts concerning the same transaction, 9 not subsequent agreements). 10 {21} Seller’s claim, that this clause is an integration clause, superseding the 11 Buyer’s Agreement, turns on the second sentence of the clause. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Continental General Tire, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007“When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interests of the holder of the privilege and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require.” Id. 2007"When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interests of the holder of the privilege and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require." Id. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2011Cf. State 18 v. Wilson, 1998-NMCA-084, ¶ 6 , 125 N.M. 390 , 962 P.2d 636 (explaining the effect 10 1 of a similar version of the rule to require that an appeal be tried and disposed of within 2 the time period of the rule or dismissal of the appeal would result). 3 In this case, there was no final resolution or determination in the case on the 4 final day of the Supreme Court extension of time. 2011Cf. State 18 v. Wilson, 1998-NMCA-084, ¶ 6 , 125 N.M. 390 , 962 P.2d 636 (explaining the effect 10 1 of a similar version of the rule to require that an appeal be tried and disposed of within 2 the time period of the rule or dismissal of the appeal would result). 3 In this case, there was no final resolution or determination in the case on the 4 final day of the Supreme Court extension of time. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
William E. Jones v. United States
green
2 sentences1981We adopt the exposition of our Rule 21(f) found in the federal decisions we have cited on federal Rule 11(d), and impose upon trial courts the responsibility to fully comply with the second sentence of the rule according to the directives of Moody and Jones, supra . 1981We adopt the exposition of our Rule 21(f) found in the federal decisions we have cited on federal Rule 11(d), and impose upon trial courts the responsibility to fully comply with the second sentence of the rule according to the directives of Moody and Jones, supra. Had the trial court made the required second inquiry of all participants in this case, under the holding of State v. Lord, supra, defendant would have been completely foreclosed from later asserting that the prosecutor had made unkept promises. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Company
green
2 sentences1961He cites and relies on the cases of Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105, 1108 , where we had the following to say: “The purpose of instructions is to enlighten the jury. 1961He cites and relies on the cases of Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105, 1108 , where we had the following to say: “The purpose of instructions is to enlighten the jury. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.