8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In RE MARRIAGE OF MURRAY v. Murraygreen2 sentences2002See Murray v. Murray, 128 Wis.2d 458 , 383 N.W.2d 904, 906-07 (Wis.Ct.App.1986) (holding that judge who made statements indicating he would rale against accused contemnor was not impartial and could not preside over contempt hearing); Robinson, 247 S.E.2d at 245 (reversing suspension where the charges issued against the attorney showed that the trial court had prejudged the matter). 2002See Murray v. Murray, 128 Wis.2d 458 , 383 N.W.2d 904, 906-07 (Wis.Ct.App.1986) (holding that judge who made statements indicating he would rale against accused contemnor was not impartial and could not preside over contempt hearing); Robinson, 247 S.E.2d at 245 (reversing suspension where the charges issued against the attorney showed that the trial court had prejudged the matter). | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Right to Practice Law of Robinsongreen2 sentences2002See Murray v. Murray, 128 Wis.2d 458 , 383 N.W.2d 904, 906-07 (Wis.Ct.App.1986) (holding that judge who made statements indicating he would rule against accused contemnor was not impartial and could not preside over contempt hearing); Robinson, 247 S.E.2d at 245 (reversing suspension where the charges issued against the attorney showed that the trial court had prejudged the matter). 2002See Murray v. Murray, 128 Wis.2d 458 , 383 N.W.2d 904, 906-07 (Wis.Ct.App.1986) (holding that judge who made statements indicating he would rale against accused contemnor was not impartial and could not preside over contempt hearing); Robinson, 247 S.E.2d at 245 (reversing suspension where the charges issued against the attorney showed that the trial court had prejudged the matter). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tafoyagreen1 sentence2019See State v. Tafoya, 2012-NMSC-030, ¶¶ 58-59 , 285 P.3d 604 (“An appellate court will not second-guess counsel’s strategic judgment unless the conduct does not conform with an objective standard of reasonableness.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2021Defendant faults trial counsel for this deprivation, arguing that trial counsel’s apparent belief that the State has the “burden to bring [Defendant’s] magistrate court appeal to trial . . . is not the law in New Mexico.” According to Defendant, trial counsel’s misapprehension of the law caused the dismissal of his appeal, which not only resulted in a due process violation, but was also ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2 Defense counsel requested to reinstate the appeal prior to the show cause hearing, writing in response to the order to sh | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Rael
green
2 sentences2014See Rule 12-208(F) NMRA 3 (permitting the amendment of the docketing statement based upon good cause shown); 4 State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 (setting out 5 requirements for a successful motion to amend the docketing statement). 2014See Rule 12-208(F) NMRA 3 (permitting the amendment of the docketing statement based upon good cause shown); 4 State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 (setting out 5 requirements for a successful motion to amend the docketing statement). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Stout
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 475 , 672 P.2d at 648 . 2005Id. at 475 , 672 P.2d at 648 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Jasper
green
2 sentences1985The Court of Appeals, 708 P.2d 1048 , consolidated the appeals of the four respondents. 1985The Court of Appeals, 708 P.2d 1048 , consolidated the appeals of the four respondents. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State Ex Rel Delgado, Sheriff v. Leahy
neutral
2 sentences1977Delgado, Sheriff v. Leahy, 30 N.M. 221 , 231 P. 197 (1924), therefore the Legislature may have regarded the additional show cause hearing as a necessary protection of a state officer’s rights. 1977Delgado, Sheriff v. Leahy, 30 N.M. 221 , 231 P. 197 (1924), therefore the Legislature may have regarded the additional show cause hearing as a necessary protection of a state officer’s rights. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.