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.
59 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2024 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edington v. Albagreen2 sentences2013See Edington v. Alba, 74 N.M. 263, 265 , 392 P.2d 675, 676 (1964) (declining to follow a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that was materially different from the applicable New Mexico rule); cf. Rivera, 111 N.M. at 673-74 , 808 P.2d at 958-59 (explaining that Rule 1-011 differs from Rule 11, thereby requiring a different inquiry into Rule 1-011 than would apply to its federal counterpart). 2013See Edington v. Alba, 74 N.M. 263, 265 , 392 P.2d 675, 676 (1964) (declining to follow a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that was materially different from the applicable New Mexico rule); cf. Rivera, 111 N.M. at 673-74 , 808 P.2d at 958-59 (explaining that Rule 1-011 differs from Rule 11, thereby requiring a different inquiry into Rule 1-011 than would apply to its federal counterpart). | 3 | 3 |
Rivera v. Brazos Lodge Corp.green2 sentences2013See Edington v. Alba, 74 N.M. 263, 265 , 392 P.2d 675, 676 (1964) (declining to follow a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that was materially different from the applicable New Mexico rule); cf. Rivera, 111 N.M. at 673-74 , 808 P.2d at 958-59 (explaining that Rule 1-011 differs from Rule 11, thereby requiring a different inquiry into Rule 1-011 than would apply to its federal counterpart). 2013See Edington v. Alba, 74 N.M. 263, 265 , 392 P.2d 675, 676 (1964) (declining to follow a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that was materially different from the applicable New Mexico rule); cf. Rivera, 111 N.M. at 673-74 , 808 P.2d at 958-59 (explaining that Rule 1-011 differs from Rule 11, thereby requiring a different inquiry into Rule 1-011 than would apply to its federal counterpart). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Rowellgreen2 sentences2023“Th[is] rule allowing contemporaneous 18 searches is justified . . . by the need to seize weapons and other things which might 19 be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well as by the need to prevent the 6 1 destruction of evidence of the crime—things which might easily happen where the 2 weapon or evidence is on the accused’s person or under his immediate control.” 3 Chimel, 395 U.S. at 764 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 Recognizing that generally “the federal search incident to arrest exception was 5 construed in the same fashion as the New Mexico exception 2023Recognizing that generally “the federal search incident to arrest exception was construed in the same fashion as the New Mexico exception,” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 , this Court has held, “a search incident to arrest is a reasonable preventative measure to eliminate any possibility of the arrestee’s accessing weapons or evidence, without any requirement of a showing that an actual threat exists in a particular case.” Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031, ¶ 29 . “[T]he scope of a lawful search incident to arrest,” however, is “defined and limited by its supporting justification[,] . . . consistent with t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Clementsgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci 2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci | 2 | 2 |
State v. Trujillogreen2 sentences2016Evid. 804(b)(3) in analyzing the analogous New Mexico 13 rule), overruled on other grounds by State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 14 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 ; see also State v. Trujillo, 1980-NMSC-004 , ¶ 13, 93 N.M. 15 724, 605 P.2d 232 (recognizing that because New Mexico Rule 11-410 “was adopted 16 verbatim from the federal version,” the federal legislative history was “illuminating” 17 to an analysis of the New Mexico rule). 18 A. The Language of Rule 11-410(A)(2) Plainly Prohibits Admissibility of a 19 Nolo Plea Against the Pleader in Subsequent Proceedings 6 1 {12} Defendants urge 2016Evid. 804(b)(3) in analyzing the analogous New Mexico rule), overruled on other grounds by State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 ; see also State v. Trujillo, 1980-NMSC-004 , ¶ 13, 93 N.M. 724 , 605 P.2d 232 (recognizing that because New Mexico Rule 11-410 “was adopted verbatim from the federal version,” the federal legislative history was “illuminating” to an analysis of the New Mexico rule). | 2 | 2 |
Iman Sharif v. Nathan Piconegreen2 sentences2016In the thirty-six years since Trujillo, many of 13 the state and federal jurisdictions that recognize the nolo plea have had the 14 opportunity to construe similar evidentiary provisions, resulting in case law that 15 considers admitting evidence of a conviction predicated on a nolo plea in certain 16 limited contexts “[d]espite Rule 410’s apparent clear command.” Sharif v. Picone, 17 740 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2014). 18 {19} While there is no universal agreement on the overall scope of judicial 11 1 exceptions to Rule 410, see Weissenberger & Duane, supra, § 410.3 at 212, all 2 jurisdictions 2016In the thirty-six years since Trujillo, many of the state and federal jurisdictions that recognize the nolo plea have had the opportunity to construe similar evidentiary provisions, resulting in case law that considers admitting evidence of a conviction predicated on a nolo plea in certain limited contexts “[d]espite Rule 410’s apparent clear command.” Sharif v. Picone, 740 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2014). {19} While there is no universal agreement on the overall scope of judicial exceptions to Rule 410, see Weissenberger & Duane, supra, § 410.3 at 212, all jurisdictions generally agree that evid | 2 | 2 |
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,855 Outboard Marine Corporation v. Babcock Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2011See Outboard Marine Corp. v. Babcock Indus., 106 F.3d 182, 184 (7th Cir.1997) (stating that mitigation of damages in contract law corresponds to avoidable consequences in tort law and that “[t]ort and contract law have similar aims, and their doctrines tend therefore to be isomorphic”); 24 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on The Law of Contracts § 64:15, at 147 (Richard A. Lord, 4th ed. 2002) (“The true reason why notice to the defendant of the plaintiffs special circumstances is important is because, just as a court of equity under circumstances of hardship arising after the formation of a contra 2011See Outboard Marine Corp. v. Babcock Indus., 106 F.3d 182, 184 (7th Cir.1997) (stating that mitigation of damages in contract law corresponds to avoidable consequences in tort law and that "[t]ort and contract law have similar aims, and their doctrines tend therefore to be isomorphic"); 24 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on The Law of Contracts § 64:15, at 147 (Richard A. Lord, 4th ed. 2002) ("The true reason why notice to the defendant of the plaintiffs special circumstances is important is because, just as a court of equity under circumstances of hardship arising after the formation of a contra | 2 | 2 |
Mattegat v. Klopfensteingreen2 sentences2011See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 351, cmt. a (stating that the requirement in foreseeability in contract "is a more severe limitation of liability than is the requirement of substantial or `proximate' cause ... in tort or for breach of warranty"); Corbin, supra, at 91 (indicating that common law "[c]ourts have been willing to include in tort actions more remote and less easily foreseeable elements of injury than is the case in contract actions"); White & Summers, supra, § 10-4, at 389-90 (stating that the vast majority of jurisdictions that have followed UCC § 2-715(2) commentary comman 2011See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 351, cmt. a (stating that the requirement in foreseeability in contract "is a more severe limitation of liability than is the requirement of substantial or `proximate' cause ... in tort or for breach of warranty"); Corbin, supra, at 91 (indicating that common law "[c]ourts have been willing to include in tort actions more remote and less easily foreseeable elements of injury than is the case in contract actions"); White & Summers, supra, § 10-4, at 389-90 (stating that the vast majority of jurisdictions that have followed UCC § 2-715(2) commentary comman | 2 | 2 |
Vanderbeek v. Vernon Corp.green2 sentences2011See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 351, cmt. a (stating that the requirement in foreseeability in contract “is a more severe limitation of liability than is the requirement of substantial or ‘proximate’ cause ... in tort or for breach of warranty”); Corbin, supra, at 91 (indicating that common law “[c]ourts have been willing to include in tort actions more remote and less easily foreseeable elements of injury than is the case in contract actions”); White & Summers, supra, § 10-4, at 389-90 (stating that the vast majority of jurisdictions that have followed UCC § 2-715(2) commentary comman 2011See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 351, cmt. a (stating that the requirement in foreseeability in contract "is a more severe limitation of liability than is the requirement of substantial or `proximate' cause ... in tort or for breach of warranty"); Corbin, supra, at 91 (indicating that common law "[c]ourts have been willing to include in tort actions more remote and less easily foreseeable elements of injury than is the case in contract actions"); White & Summers, supra, § 10-4, at 389-90 (stating that the vast majority of jurisdictions that have followed UCC § 2-715(2) commentary comman | 2 | 2 |
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2007Less intrusive alternatives to disclosure may be proposed by either party, but the party claiming the privilege has the burden of demonstrating “that an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure.” Id. at 713-14. {40} Florida, which also has a trade secret privilege with language similar to the New Mexico privilege, considered the scope of the privilege in Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So.2d 1277 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (per curiam). 2007Less intrusive alternatives to disclosure may be proposed by either party, but the party claiming the privilege has the burden of demonstrating "that an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure." Id. at 713-14. {40} Florida, which also has a trade secret privilege with language similar to the New Mexico privilege, considered the scope of the privilege in Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So.2d 1277 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (per curiam). | 2 | 2 |
Chimel v. Californiared2 sentences2023“Th[is] rule allowing contemporaneous 18 searches is justified . . . by the need to seize weapons and other things which might 19 be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well as by the need to prevent the 6 1 destruction of evidence of the crime—things which might easily happen where the 2 weapon or evidence is on the accused’s person or under his immediate control.” 3 Chimel, 395 U.S. at 764 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 Recognizing that generally “the federal search incident to arrest exception was 5 construed in the same fashion as the New Mexico exception 2008In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), the United States Supreme Court specifically recognized that the scope of a lawful search incident to arrest was defined and limited by its supporting justification. | 1 | 2 |
Henry v. Danielgreen2 sentences2024Comm’rs of Torrance 21 Cnty., 2020-NMCA-002, ¶ 10 , 455 P.3d 871 (providing that because “the New 22 Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Although this treatise references Rules 6 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure, we rely on it, in this instance, for the reasons articulated below. 7 1 Procedure,” where a New Mexico rule “is virtually identical to its federal 2 counterpart,” interpretations of the federal rule are persuasive authority for the 3 construction of the New Mexico rule (alteration, internal quotation marks, and 4 citation omitte 2024Comm’rs of Torrance 21 Cnty., 2020-NMCA-002, ¶ 10 , 455 P.3d 871 (providing that because “the New 22 Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Although this treatise references Rules 6 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure, we rely on it, in this instance, for the reasons articulated below. 7 1 Procedure,” where a New Mexico rule “is virtually identical to its federal 2 counterpart,” interpretations of the federal rule are persuasive authority for the 3 construction of the New Mexico rule (alteration, internal quotation marks, and 4 citation omitte | 1 | 1 |
State v. Surrattgreen2 sentences2024Surratt, 2016-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 15, 19 . 2024Insofar as Section 36-1-23.1 applies “to the appointment of any practicing member of the New Mexico bar, [whether] public or private counsel, as [a] special prosecutor,” Surratt, 2016-NMSC-004, ¶ 19 , we reject Defendant’s argument. {8} In reliance upon Section 36-1-19(A) and Baca, 1984-NMCA-096 , Defendant further contends that insofar as the State failed to obtain a court order, the appointment of the special prosecutor was unauthorized. [BIC 9-22] However, the Supreme Court has held that Section 36-1-23.1 grants the district attorneys discretionary authority to appoint special prosecutors “ | 1 | 1 |
| American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Albuquerquegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lopez v. Singhgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarottogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marler v. Allengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clay v. Ferrellgas, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rochester v. Rochestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Trujillo v. Serranogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Klemptgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gomezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Century Bank v. Hymansgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia Appeal of Edwin A. Meese, Iii, Attorney General of the United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Banquest/First Natonal Bank v. LMT, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Benavidez v. Benavidezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gregg v. Gardnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Laragreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Torrance Cty.
green
2 sentences2024Comm’rs of Torrance 21 Cnty., 2020-NMCA-002, ¶ 10 , 455 P.3d 871 (providing that because “the New 22 Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Although this treatise references Rules 6 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure, we rely on it, in this instance, for the reasons articulated below. 7 1 Procedure,” where a New Mexico rule “is virtually identical to its federal 2 counterpart,” interpretations of the federal rule are persuasive authority for the 3 construction of the New Mexico rule (alteration, internal quotation marks, and 4 citation omitte 2023Comm’rs of Torrance Cnty., 11 2020-NMCA-002, ¶ 10 , 455 P.3d 871 (relying on the federal construction of a 12 federal rule of civil procedure as persuasive authority where the language of the rule 13 closely tracked the New Mexico rule). | 3 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Paananen
green
2 sentences2023“Th[is] rule allowing contemporaneous 18 searches is justified . . . by the need to seize weapons and other things which might 19 be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well as by the need to prevent the 6 1 destruction of evidence of the crime—things which might easily happen where the 2 weapon or evidence is on the accused’s person or under his immediate control.” 3 Chimel, 395 U.S. at 764 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 Recognizing that generally “the federal search incident to arrest exception was 5 construed in the same fashion as the New Mexico exception 2023Recognizing that generally “the federal search incident to arrest exception was construed in the same fashion as the New Mexico exception,” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 , this Court has held, “a search incident to arrest is a reasonable preventative measure to eliminate any possibility of the arrestee’s accessing weapons or evidence, without any requirement of a showing that an actual threat exists in a particular case.” Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031, ¶ 29 . “[T]he scope of a lawful search incident to arrest,” however, is “defined and limited by its supporting justification[,] . . . consistent with t | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Weddle
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci 2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Caristo v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci 2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci | 2 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Salerno
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci 2018See State v. Clements , 1988-NMCA-094 , ¶ 15, 108 N.M. 13 , 765 P.2d 1195 (looking to federal law in interpreting a New Mexico rule with language similar to the federal rule); State v. Weddle , 1967-NMSC-028 , ¶ 8, 77 N.M. 420 , 423 P.2d 611 (same), contested on other grounds , Caristo v. Sullivan , 1991-NMSC-088 , 112 N.M. 623 , 818 P.2d 401 . {95} Our New Mexico Constitution and court rules relating to detention contain all the procedural safeguards that the United States Supreme Court found constitutionally sufficient in Salerno , including a detention hearing requiring a clear and convinci | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Duarte
green
2 sentences2017“The denial of a motion to sanction by dismissal 6 or suppression of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State v. Duarte, 7 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 3 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 . 8 {13} Although alternate tests apply under circumstances in which collected evidence 9 is “lost, destroyed, or inadequately preserved,” State v. Ware articulates the New 10 Mexico test for cases in which the evidence at issue is never collected. 1994-NMSC- 11 091, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 319 , 881 P.2d 679 . 2017“The denial of a motion to sanction by dismissal 6 or suppression of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State v. Duarte, 7 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 3 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 . 8 {13} Although alternate tests apply under circumstances in which collected evidence 9 is “lost, destroyed, or inadequately preserved,” State v. Ware articulates the New 10 Mexico test for cases in which the evidence at issue is never collected. 1994-NMSC- 11 091, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 319 , 881 P.2d 679 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ware
green
2 sentences2017“The denial of a motion to sanction by dismissal 6 or suppression of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State v. Duarte, 7 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 3 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 . 8 {13} Although alternate tests apply under circumstances in which collected evidence 9 is “lost, destroyed, or inadequately preserved,” State v. Ware articulates the New 10 Mexico test for cases in which the evidence at issue is never collected. 1994-NMSC- 11 091, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 319 , 881 P.2d 679 . 2017“The denial of a motion to sanction by dismissal 6 or suppression of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State v. Duarte, 7 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 3 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 . 8 {13} Although alternate tests apply under circumstances in which collected evidence 9 is “lost, destroyed, or inadequately preserved,” State v. Ware articulates the New 10 Mexico test for cases in which the evidence at issue is never collected. 1994-NMSC- 11 091, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 319 , 881 P.2d 679 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Alvarez-Lopez
green
2 sentences2016Evid. 804(b)(3) in analyzing the analogous New Mexico 13 rule), overruled on other grounds by State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 14 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 ; see also State v. Trujillo, 1980-NMSC-004 , ¶ 13, 93 N.M. 15 724, 605 P.2d 232 (recognizing that because New Mexico Rule 11-410 “was adopted 16 verbatim from the federal version,” the federal legislative history was “illuminating” 17 to an analysis of the New Mexico rule). 18 A. The Language of Rule 11-410(A)(2) Plainly Prohibits Admissibility of a 19 Nolo Plea Against the Pleader in Subsequent Proceedings 6 1 {12} Defendants urge 2016Evid. 804(b)(3) in analyzing the analogous New Mexico 13 rule), overruled on other grounds by State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 14 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 ; see also State v. Trujillo, 1980-NMSC-004 , ¶ 13, 93 N.M. 15 724, 605 P.2d 232 (recognizing that because New Mexico Rule 11-410 “was adopted 16 verbatim from the federal version,” the federal legislative history was “illuminating” 17 to an analysis of the New Mexico rule). 18 A. The Language of Rule 11-410(A)(2) Plainly Prohibits Admissibility of a 19 Nolo Plea Against the Pleader in Subsequent Proceedings 6 1 {12} Defendants urge | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co.
green
2 sentences2011Rep. 145, and Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540 , 23 S.Ct. 754 , 47 L.Ed. 1171 (1903). 2011Rep. 145, and Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540 , 23 S.Ct. 754 , 47 L.Ed. 1171 (1903). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Bryant v. State Office Bldg. Commission
neutral
2 sentences2011We discuss eight mainstay New Mexico cases beginning the discussion with Price v. Van Lint, 46 N.M. 58 , 120 P.2d 611 (1941), and continuing chronologically. 2011We discuss eight mainstay New Mexico cases beginning the discussion with Price v. Van Lint, 46 N.M. 58 , 120 P.2d 611 (1941), and continuing chronologically. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Camino Real Mobile Home Park Partnership v. Wolfe
green
2 sentences2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008 , *337 ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining , is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. 2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008 , *337 ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining , is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Wall v. Pate
green
2 sentences2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008 , *337 ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining , is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. 2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008 , *337 ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining , is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Manouchehri v. Heim
green
2 sentences2011Plaintiff nevertheless relies on a UCC case, Manouchehri v. Heim, 1997-NMCA-052 , 123 N.M. 439 , 941 P.2d 978 (Ct.App.1997). 2011Plaintiff nevertheless relies on a UCC case, Manouchehri v. Heim, 1997-NMCA-052 , 123 N.M. 439 , 941 P.2d 978 (Ct.App.1997). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Price v. Van Lint
green
2 sentences2011We discuss eight mainstay New Mexico cases beginning the discussion with Price v. Van Lint, 46 N.M. 58 , 120 P.2d 611 (1941), and continuing chronologically. 2011We discuss eight mainstay New Mexico cases beginning the discussion with Price v. Van Lint, 46 N.M. 58 , 120 P.2d 611 (1941), and continuing chronologically. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Jones v. Lee
green
2 sentences2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008 , *337 ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining , is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. 2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008 , *337 ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining , is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Morgan Keegan Mortgage Co. v. Candelaria
green
2 sentences2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008, ¶ 19 , 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining, is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. 2011Camino Real, 119 N.M. at 446 , 891 P.2d at 1200 ; Wall, 104 N.M. at 2 , 715 P.2d at 450 ; Jones, 1998-NMCA-008 , *337 ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 467 , 971 P.2d 858 . {34} The New Mexico rule, derived from Hadley and Globe Refining , is more limited and restrictive than the notion of foreseeability in the law of negligence or as relaxed in the Restatement or the UCC. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. IJE, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Less intrusive alternatives to disclosure may be proposed by either party, but the party claiming the privilege has the burden of demonstrating “that an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure.” Id. at 713-14. {40} Florida, which also has a trade secret privilege with language similar to the New Mexico privilege, considered the scope of the privilege in Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So.2d 1277 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (per curiam). 2007Less intrusive alternatives to disclosure may be proposed by either party, but the party claiming the privilege has the burden of demonstrating "that an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure." Id. at 713-14. {40} Florida, which also has a trade secret privilege with language similar to the New Mexico privilege, considered the scope of the privilege in Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So.2d 1277 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993) (per curiam). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Torres green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Behrmann v. Phototron Corp. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Jordan v. Allstate Insurance green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Government of the Virgin Islands v. Glen Smith, Elton Rieara, Elvis Smith and Roland Georges green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. PAUL T. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. First Judicial District Court green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Layton green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Breit green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Rhein v. ADT Automotive, Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Williamson v. United States green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Joe E. Garcia v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Day green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Hartford Fire Insurance v. Garvey green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Torres v. Village of Capitan green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Distad v. Cubin green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Manson v. Brathwaite green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Jerry W. Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence and the Washington Hospital Center, a Body Corporate green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Dendy green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Ferguson green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Couillard v. Bank of New Mexico green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Stewart v. Potter green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Herrera v. C & R PAVING COMPANY green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Owen v. Burn Construction Co. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.