58 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 19 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2025The Mathews factors are: 16 First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; 17 second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the 18 procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or 19 substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's 20 interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and 21 administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural 22 requirement would entail. 23 Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . 22 1 {35} The Parole Board, following orders from the district court, held duration 2 revi 2025The Mathews factors are: 16 First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; 17 second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the 18 procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or 19 substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's 20 interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and 21 administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural 22 requirement would entail. 23 Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . 22 1 {35} The Parole Board, following orders from the district court, held duration 2 revi | 5 | 24 |
Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Department Ex Rel. City of Santa Fegreen2 sentences2024In determining whether additional process is due in an administrative proceeding, we apply the test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which requires us to consider “[t]he importance of the individual’s and administrative body’s interests, together with the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such private interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards.” Archuleta, 2005-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 31-32 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {8} The district court applied the Mathews test and concluded 2024In determining whether additional process is due in an administrative proceeding, we apply the test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which requires us to consider “[t]he importance of the individual’s and administrative body’s interests, together with the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such private interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards.” Archuleta, 2005-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 31-32 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {8} The district court applied the Mathews test and concluded | 4 | 7 |
State v. Rotherhamgreen2 sentences2025See Houidobre, 2025-NMSC-007, ¶ 27 (explaining 8 that “New Mexico courts apply the three-factor test” from Mathews “to determine 9 whether the administrative procedures employed comport with the Fourteenth 10 Amendment”); Cooley, 2023-NMCA-089 , ¶ 31 (“If there is a protected interest that 11 has been deprived by the state, answering whether procedural due process was 12 provided requires us to balance that interest against the state’s interests as guided by 13 the factors in Mathews.”); see also State v. Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , ¶ 51, 122 14 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (stating that the United 2024See State v. Rotherham, 1996- 13 NMSC-048, ¶ 51, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (noting the Mathews test is applied 14 in both civil and criminal contexts); State v. Cooley, 2023-NMCA-089 , ¶ 31, 538 15 P.3d 491 (noting that in answering what procedural due process is owed requires 16 “balanc[ing] that interest against the state’s interests as guided by the factors in 17 Mathews”). | 3 | 3 |
U S West Communications, Inc. v. New Mexico State Corp. Commissiongreen2 sentences2023See In re Comm’n Investigation Into 1997 Earnings of U.S. West Commc’ns, Inc., 1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 26 , 127 N.M. 254 , 980 P.2d 37 (setting out the Mathews factors to be examined in an administrative-proceeding due process challenge). 2023See In re Comm’n Investigation Into 1997 Earnings of U.S. West Commc’ns, Inc., 1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 26 , 127 N.M. 254 , 980 P.2d 37 (setting out the Mathews factors to be examined in an administrative-proceeding due process challenge). | 3 | 3 |
Sandia v. Riveragreen2 sentences2014See Sandia, 2002-NMCA-057, ¶ 10 (“Procedural due process is a flexible right and the amount of process due depends on the particular circumstances of each case.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2014See Sandia, 2002-NMCA-057, ¶ 10 (“Procedural due process is a flexible right and the amount of process due depends on the particular circumstances of each case.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
Bd. of Educ. of Carlsbad v. Harrellgreen2 sentences2013Sch. v. Harrell, 118 N.M. 470, 478 , 882 P.2d 511, 519 (1994) (recognizing the three Mathews factors). 2013Sch. v. Harrell, 118 N.M. 470, 478 , 882 P.2d 511, 519 (1994) (recognizing the three Mathews factors). | 3 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Ruth Anne E.green2 sentences2003Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Anne McD., 2000-NMCA-020, ¶ 24 , 128 N.M. 618 , 995 P.2d 1060 , “[i]n balancing the parent’s rights and interest and the State’s rights and interest ..., the determinative factor is the second prong of the Mathews test,” balancing the risk of error with the value of additional safeguards. {16} In Ruth Anne E., the father was not present at the hearing on the termination of his parental rights because he was incarcerated in another state. 1999-NMCA-035, ¶ 7, 14 , 126 N.M. 670 , 974 P.2d 164 . 2003Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Anne McD., 2000-NMCA-020, ¶ 24 , 128 N.M. 618 , 995 P.2d 1060 , “[i]n balancing the parent’s rights and interest and the State’s rights and interest ..., the determinative factor is the second prong of the Mathews test,” balancing the risk of error with the value of additional safeguards. {16} In Ruth Anne E., the father was not present at the hearing on the termination of his parental rights because he was incarcerated in another state. 1999-NMCA-035, ¶ 7, 14 , 126 N.M. 670 , 974 P.2d 164 . | 3 | 3 |
City of Albuquerque v. Chavezgreen2 sentences2023See 15 1 West, 1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 26 (considering the “proceedings as a whole” to balance 2 the Mathews factors (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); City of 3 Albuquerque v. Chavez, 1998-NMSC-033, ¶ 14 , 125 N.M. 809 , 965 P.2d 928 4 (considering “the pre- and post-termination proceedings as a whole” in order to 5 assess the risk that the rights would be erroneously deprived). 6 A. The Individual Procedures Challenged by Residents Do Not Establish 7 Due Process Violations 8 {23} Residents maintain that the Governing Body’s public hearing on the five 9 applications did not afford con 2023See 15 1 West, 1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 26 (considering the “proceedings as a whole” to balance 2 the Mathews factors (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); City of 3 Albuquerque v. Chavez, 1998-NMSC-033, ¶ 14 , 125 N.M. 809 , 965 P.2d 928 4 (considering “the pre- and post-termination proceedings as a whole” in order to 5 assess the risk that the rights would be erroneously deprived). 6 A. The Individual Procedures Challenged by Residents Do Not Establish 7 Due Process Violations 8 {23} Residents maintain that the Governing Body’s public hearing on the five 9 applications did not afford con | 2 | 6 |
NM Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduñogreen2 sentences2023Dep’t of Workforce Sols. v. Garduño, 2016-NMSC-002, ¶ 11 , 363 P.3d 1176 (stating that the Mathews test is the correct analytical framework for a due process analysis, and it involves weighing the factors of (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and (3) the state’s interest). 2023Dep’t of Workforce Sols. v. Garduño, 2016-NMSC-002, ¶ 11 , 363 P.3d 1176 (stating that the Mathews test is the correct analytical framework for a due process analysis, and it involves weighing the factors of (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and (3) the state’s interest). | 2 | 6 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Pamela R.D.G.green2 sentences2023Dep’t v. Pamela R.D.G., 2006-NMSC-019, ¶ 13 , 139 N.M. 459 , 134 P.3d 746 (employing the Mathews test to assess whether the parents’ due process rights were violated). 2023Dep’t v. Pamela R.D.G., 2006-NMSC-019, ¶ 13 , 139 N.M. 459 , 134 P.3d 746 (employing the Mathews test to assess whether the parents’ due process rights were violated). | 2 | 4 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Browind C.green2 sentences2013See Browind C., 2007-NMCA-023, ¶ 31 (applying the Mathews test in the context of a termination of parental rights case). 2013See Browind C., 2007-NMCA-023, ¶ 31 (applying the Mathews test in the context of a termination of parental rights case). | 2 | 3 |
Berg v. Shearergreen2 sentences2014See Berg, 755 F.2d at 1347 (holding that under the Mathews test, the claimant showed “no significant injury caused by inadequate pre-termination notice” of hearing regarding unemployment benefits). {35} For all these reasons, I respectfully dissent from Part C of the Majority Opinion. ____________________________________ J. 2014See Berg, 755 F.2d at 1347 (holding that under the Mathews test, the claimant showed “no significant injury caused by inadequate pre-termination notice” of hearing regarding unemployment benefits). {35} For all these reasons, I respectfully dissent from Part C of the Majority Opinion. ____________________________________ J. | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Maria C.green2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Termination of Parental Rights With Regard to Samantha D.green2 sentences2000In re Samantha D., 106 N.M. 184, 186 , 740 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Ct.App.1987). {24} In balancing the parent's rights and interest and the State's rights and interest in the case before us, the determinative factor is the second prong of the Mathews test: whether the procedures used increased the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest and whether additional safeguards would eliminate or lower that risk. 2000In re Samantha D., 106 N.M. 184, 186 , 740 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Ct.App.1987). {24} In balancing the parent's rights and interest and the State's rights and interest in the case before us, the determinative factor is the second prong of the Mathews test: whether the procedures used increased the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest and whether additional safeguards would eliminate or lower that risk. | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Mafin M.green2 sentences2013In light of that balance, our Supreme Court has stated that “the decisive issue centers on the second factor of the Mathews test.” Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, ¶ 20 . 2013In light of that balance, our Supreme Court has stated that “the decisive issue centers on the second factor of the Mathews test.” Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, ¶ 20 . | 1 | 7 |
In the Matter of Pamela AGgreen2 sentences2023Dep’t v. Pamela R.D.G., 2006-NMSC-019, ¶ 13 , 139 N.M. 459 , 134 P.3d 746 (employing the Mathews test to assess whether the parents’ due process rights were violated). 2023Dep’t v. Pamela R.D.G., 2006-NMSC-019, ¶ 13 , 139 N.M. 459 , 134 P.3d 746 (employing the Mathews test to assess whether the parents’ due process rights were violated). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Houidobregreen1 sentence2025See Houidobre, 2025-NMSC-007, ¶ 27 (explaining 8 that “New Mexico courts apply the three-factor test” from Mathews “to determine 9 whether the administrative procedures employed comport with the Fourteenth 10 Amendment”); Cooley, 2023-NMCA-089 , ¶ 31 (“If there is a protected interest that 11 has been deprived by the state, answering whether procedural due process was 12 provided requires us to balance that interest against the state’s interests as guided by 13 the factors in Mathews.”); see also State v. Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , ¶ 51, 122 14 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (stating that the United | 1 | 1 |
In Re Com'n Investigationgreen2 sentences2023See In re Comm’n Investigation Into 1997 Earnings of U.S. West Commc’ns, Inc., 1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 26 , 127 N.M. 254 , 980 P.2d 37 (setting out the Mathews factors to be examined in an administrative-proceeding due process challenge). 2023See In re Comm’n Investigation Into 1997 Earnings of U.S. West Commc’ns, Inc., 1999-NMSC-016, ¶ 26 , 127 N.M. 254 , 980 P.2d 37 (setting out the Mathews factors to be examined in an administrative-proceeding due process challenge). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jose S.green2 sentences2016See State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 20 , 5 142 N.M. 829 , 171 P.3d 768 (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible 6 error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 7 {18} We therefore turn to Protestants’ argument that the introduction of the 210-day 8 deadline argument at the hearing constitutes a violation of their due process. 9 Protestants contend that the second factor in the balancing test from Mathews v. 10 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is relevant. [MIO 6] “We weigh three factors under 11 the Mathews test: (1) the [taxpayer’s] interest, (2) the risk to the [tax 2016See State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 20 , 5 142 N.M. 829 , 171 P.3d 768 (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible 6 error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 7 {18} We therefore turn to Protestants’ argument that the introduction of the 210-day 8 deadline argument at the hearing constitutes a violation of their due process. 9 Protestants contend that the second factor in the balancing test from Mathews v. 10 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is relevant. [MIO 6] “We weigh three factors under 11 the Mathews test: (1) the [taxpayer’s] interest, (2) the risk to the [tax | 1 | 1 |
State v. JOSE S.green2 sentences2016See State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 20 , 5 142 N.M. 829 , 171 P.3d 768 (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible 6 error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 7 {18} We therefore turn to Protestants’ argument that the introduction of the 210-day 8 deadline argument at the hearing constitutes a violation of their due process. 9 Protestants contend that the second factor in the balancing test from Mathews v. 10 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is relevant. [MIO 6] “We weigh three factors under 11 the Mathews test: (1) the [taxpayer’s] interest, (2) the risk to the [tax 2016See State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 20 , 5 142 N.M. 829 , 171 P.3d 768 (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible 6 error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 7 {18} We therefore turn to Protestants’ argument that the introduction of the 210-day 8 deadline argument at the hearing constitutes a violation of their due process. 9 Protestants contend that the second factor in the balancing test from Mathews v. 10 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is relevant. [MIO 6] “We weigh three factors under 11 the Mathews test: (1) the [taxpayer’s] interest, (2) the risk to the [tax | 1 | 1 |
Millar v. N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutionsgreen2 sentences2014See Sandia, 2002-NMCA-057, ¶ 10 (“Procedural due process is a flexible right and the amount of process due depends on the particular circumstances of each case.” 2 In Millar, a case in which our Supreme Court elected not to grant certiorari, we recognized that the claimant sought a waiver of money owed for benefits to which a claimant was disqualified and to which he had “no vested right.” 2013-NMCA-055 , ¶ 16. 2014See Sandia, 2002-NMCA-057, ¶ 10 (“Procedural due process is a flexible right and the amount of process due depends on the particular circumstances of each case.” 2 In Millar, a case in which our Supreme Court elected not to grant certiorari, we recognized that the claimant sought a waiver of money owed for benefits to which a claimant was disqualified and to which he had “no vested right.” 2013-NMCA-055 , ¶ 16. | 1 | 1 |
In Re JTGgreen2 sentences2007See In re Shaeffer Children, 85 Ohio App.3d 683 , 621 N.E.2d 426, 430-31 (1993) (applying the Mathews test and determining that the parent was entitled to the assistance of a psychiatrist); In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 130 (Tex.App.2003) (declining to extend Ake outside the criminal context). 2007See In re Shaeffer Children, 85 Ohio App.3d 683 , 621 N.E.2d 426, 430-31 (1993) (applying the Mathews test and determining that the parent was entitled to the assistance of a psychiatrist); In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117, 130 (Tex.App.2003) (declining to extend Ake outside the criminal context). | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Shaeffer Childrengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lawrence v. City of Rawlins, WYgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. County of Santa Cruzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| R. G. Britton, Appellant-Cross v. Harold Eugene Rogers, Appellee-Crossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Project Release v. Prevostgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 729996green | 1 | 1 |
| Goss v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Joynergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Allied Oil Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Salernogreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2024In sum, flexibility “is a recognition that not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure.” Id. {18} New Mexico has long recognized that “[t]he Mathews test is the appropriate analytical framework for a due process issue.” Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Dep’t ex rel. 2024In sum, flexibility “is a 16 recognition that not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same 17 kind of procedure.” Id. 18 {18} New Mexico has long recognized that “[t]he Mathews test is the appropriate 19 analytical framework for a due process issue.” Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police Dep’t 20 ex rel. | 3 | 2005–2024 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Brandy S.
green
2 sentences2023“The Mathews test requires the weighing of [the parent’s] interest; the risk to [the parent] of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and the government’s interest.” Id. “[T]he decisive issue centers on the second factor of the Mathews test,” that is, whether the procedures used increased the risk of erroneous deprivation of a parent’s interest in parenting her children, and whether additional procedural safeguards would eliminate or lower that risk. 2023“The Mathews test requires the weighing of [the parent’s] interest; the risk to [the parent] of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and the government’s interest.” Id. “[T]he decisive issue centers on the second factor of the Mathews test,” that is, whether the procedures used increased the risk of erroneous deprivation of a parent’s interest in parenting her children, and whether additional procedural safeguards would eliminate or lower that risk. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Lopez v. LeMaster
green
2 sentences2023Although the state has an interest in keeping probationers on probation, a 9 hearing which permits the district court to consider the likelihood of release but for 10 the delay does not impose any additional financial or administrative burdens. 11 Accordingly, each of the Mathews factors weighs in favor of concluding that 12 Defendants were continued on probation without being afforded procedural due 13 process. 14 {53} “[R]emedies for constitutional violations should be narrowly tailored.” Lopez 15 v. Lemaster, 2003-NMSC-003, ¶ 21 , 133 N.M. 59 , 61 P.3d 185 . 2023Although the state has an interest in keeping probationers on probation, a 9 hearing which permits the district court to consider the likelihood of release but for 10 the delay does not impose any additional financial or administrative burdens. 11 Accordingly, each of the Mathews factors weighs in favor of concluding that 12 Defendants were continued on probation without being afforded procedural due 13 process. 14 {53} “[R]emedies for constitutional violations should be narrowly tailored.” Lopez 15 v. Lemaster, 2003-NMSC-003, ¶ 21 , 133 N.M. 59 , 61 P.3d 185 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Bonilla
green
2 sentences2024See State v. Rotherham, 1996- 13 NMSC-048, ¶ 51, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (noting the Mathews test is applied 14 in both civil and criminal contexts); State v. Cooley, 2023-NMCA-089 , ¶ 31, 538 15 P.3d 491 (noting that in answering what procedural due process is owed requires 16 “balanc[ing] that interest against the state’s interests as guided by the factors in 17 Mathews”). 2024See State v. Rotherham, 1996- 13 NMSC-048, ¶ 51, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (noting the Mathews test is applied 14 in both civil and criminal contexts); State v. Cooley, 2023-NMCA-089 , ¶ 31, 538 15 P.3d 491 (noting that in answering what procedural due process is owed requires 16 “balanc[ing] that interest against the state’s interests as guided by the factors in 17 Mathews”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Cooley
green
2 sentences2024See State v. Rotherham, 1996- NMSC-048, ¶ 51, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (noting the Mathews test is applied in both civil and criminal contexts); State v. Cooley, 2023-NMCA-089 , ¶ 31, 538 P.3d 491 (noting that in answering what procedural due process is owed requires “balanc[ing] that interest against the state’s interests as guided by the factors in Mathews”). 2024See State v. Rotherham, 1996- NMSC-048, ¶ 51, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (noting the Mathews test is applied in both civil and criminal contexts); State v. Cooley, 2023-NMCA-089 , ¶ 31, 538 P.3d 491 (noting that in answering what procedural due process is owed requires “balanc[ing] that interest against the state’s interests as guided by the factors in Mathews”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth v. Steve C.
green
2 sentences2016See State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 20 , 5 142 N.M. 829 , 171 P.3d 768 (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible 6 error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 7 {18} We therefore turn to Protestants’ argument that the introduction of the 210-day 8 deadline argument at the hearing constitutes a violation of their due process. 9 Protestants contend that the second factor in the balancing test from Mathews v. 10 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is relevant. [MIO 6] “We weigh three factors under 11 the Mathews test: (1) the [taxpayer’s] interest, (2) the risk to the [tax 2016See State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 20 , 5 142 N.M. 829 , 171 P.3d 768 (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible 6 error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 7 {18} We therefore turn to Protestants’ argument that the introduction of the 210-day 8 deadline argument at the hearing constitutes a violation of their due process. 9 Protestants contend that the second factor in the balancing test from Mathews v. 10 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is relevant. [MIO 6] “We weigh three factors under 11 the Mathews test: (1) the [taxpayer’s] interest, (2) the risk to the [tax | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Little v. Streater
green
2 sentences2007Yet the United States Supreme Court in Ake noted that in a previous case it had extended due process to "quasi-criminal" proceedings, like paternity actions, to afford an indigent person meaningful access to justice. 470 U.S. at 76-77 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 (citing Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2202 , 68 L.Ed.2d 627 (1981)). 2007Yet the United States Supreme Court in Ake noted that in a previous case it had extended due process to "quasi-criminal" proceedings, like paternity actions, to afford an indigent person meaningful access to justice. 470 U.S. at 76-77 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 (citing Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2202 , 68 L.Ed.2d 627 (1981)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2007In applying the Mathews test, the Court determined that "the governmental interest in denying [the defendant] the assistance of a psychiatrist is not substantial, in light of the compelling interest of both the State and the individual in accurate dispositions." Id. at 79, 105 S.Ct. 1087 . 2007In applying the Mathews test, the Court determined that "the governmental interest in denying [the defendant] the assistance of a psychiatrist is not substantial, in light of the compelling interest of both the State and the individual in accurate dispositions." Id. at 79, 105 S.Ct. 1087 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Douglas Miller v. County of Santa Cruz green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. McD. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| STATE EX REL. CYFD v. Anne McD. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Santosky v. Kramer green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Woods green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Breed v. Jones green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Patterson v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Addington v. Texas green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Woodruff green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.