55 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 7 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. Gomezgreen2 sentences2024See generally State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (providing that we may “diverge from federal precedent for three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics”). 2024See generally State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (providing that we may “diverge from federal precedent for three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics”). | 13 | 32 |
State v. Ketelsongreen2 sentences2022We must consider whether the New Mexico Constitution provides broader protection, and “we may diverge from federal precedent for three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics.” State v. Ketelson, 2011-NMSC-023, ¶ 10 , 150 N.M. 137 , 257 P.3d 957 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {17} Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution guarantees that “[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures.” “The key inquiry un 2022We must consider whether the New Mexico Constitution provides broader protection, and “we may diverge from federal precedent for three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics.” State v. Ketelson, 2011-NMSC-023, ¶ 10 , 150 N.M. 137 , 257 P.3d 957 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {17} Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution guarantees that “[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures.” “The key inquiry un | 5 | 8 |
State v. Leyvagreen2 sentences2020II, § 18 (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”) {35} When the New Mexico constitutional provision has not yet been determined to provide greater protection under the interstitial analysis, trial counsel must (1) fairly invoke a ruling; (2) “develop the necessary factual base and raise the applicable constitutional provision in trial court;” and additionally, (3) “argue that the state constitutional provision should provide greater protection, and suggest reasons as to why, for example, a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between s 2020II, § 18 (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”) {35} When the New Mexico constitutional provision has not yet been determined to provide greater protection under the interstitial analysis, trial counsel must (1) fairly invoke a ruling; (2) “develop the necessary factual base and raise the applicable constitutional provision in trial court;” and additionally, (3) “argue that the state constitutional provision should provide greater protection, and suggest reasons as to why, for example, a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between s | 2 | 13 |
State v. Slaytongreen2 sentences2022Wright, 2019-NMCA-026 , ¶ 8; see also Slayton, 2009-NMSC-054, ¶¶ 32-33 (concluding that under the Fourth Amendment the only inquiry is whether the state actor had reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest). 2022Wright, 2019-NMCA-026 , ¶ 8; see also Slayton, 2009-NMSC-054, ¶¶ 32-33 (concluding that under the Fourth Amendment the only inquiry is whether the state actor had reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2012Where the provision has never before been addressed under our interstitial analysis, trial counsel additionally must argue that the state constitutional provision should provide greater protection and suggest reasons why “a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics.” Id. ¶ 19. {6} Here, Defendant was required to meet the less stringent of Gomez's preservation requirements because “aplethora of precedent already interprets Article II, Section 10 more expansively than the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC 2012Where the provision has never before been addressed under our interstitial analysis, trial counsel additionally must argue that the state constitutional provision should provide greater protection and suggest reasons why “a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics.” Id. ¶ 19. {6} Here, Defendant was required to meet the less stringent of Gomez's preservation requirements because “aplethora of precedent already interprets Article II, Section 10 more expansively than the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC | 1 | 4 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2015A state 13 court adopting this approach may diverge from federal precedent for 14 three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between 15 state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics. 16 Id. ¶ 19 (citations omitted). 17 {12} The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he 18 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 19 unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall 20 issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Article II, Section 1 2015A state 13 court adopting this approach may diverge from federal precedent for 14 three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between 15 state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics. 16 Id. ¶ 19 (citations omitted). 17 {12} The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he 18 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 19 unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall 20 issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Article II, Section 1 | 1 | 3 |
State v. Badonigreen2 sentences2011Water Quality Control Comm’n, 2006-NMCA-115, ¶ 37 , 140 N.M. 464 , 143 P.3d 502 (“[T]here may be reasons, such as differences in statutory language, that may make federal law or law from other jurisdictions inapplicable or inappropriate in New Mexico ____”); see, e.g., State v. Badoni 2003-NMCA-009, ¶ 16 , 133 N.M. 257 , 62 P.3d 348 (“[Fundamental differences between federal and New Mexico’s rules of pleading make federal case law on the issue of notification distinguishable ----”); cf. State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 14-16 , 130 N.M. 386 , 25 P.3d 225 (noting that New Mexico may 2011Water Quality Control Comm’n, 2006-NMCA-115, ¶ 37 , 140 N.M. 464 , 143 P.3d 502 (“[T]here may be reasons, such as differences in statutory language, that may make federal law or law from other jurisdictions inapplicable or inappropriate in New Mexico ____”); see, e.g., State v. Badoni 2003-NMCA-009, ¶ 16 , 133 N.M. 257 , 62 P.3d 348 (“[Fundamental differences between federal and New Mexico’s rules of pleading make federal case law on the issue of notification distinguishable ----”); cf. State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 14-16 , 130 N.M. 386 , 25 P.3d 225 (noting that New Mexico may | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntgreen2 sentences2001In adopting this approach, this Court recognized that, "`[A] considerable measure of cooperation must exist in a truly effective federalist system.'" Id. ¶ 21 (quoting State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338 , 450 A.2d 952, 964 (1982) (Handler, J., concurring)). 2001In adopting this approach, this Court recognized that, "`[A] considerable measure of cooperation must exist in a truly effective federalist system.'" Id. ¶ 21 (quoting State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338 , 450 A.2d 952, 964 (1982) (Handler, J., concurring)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cardenas-Alvarez
green
2 sentences2022A. Reasons to Depart From Federal Jurisprudence {15} “[A] state court may diverge from federal precedent for one of the following three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics.” State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶ 14 , 130 N.M. 386 , 25 P.3d 225 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2022A. Reasons to Depart From Federal Jurisprudence {15} “[A] state court may diverge from federal precedent for one of the following three reasons: a flawed federal analysis, structural differences between state and federal government, or distinctive state characteristics.” State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶ 14 , 130 N.M. 386 , 25 P.3d 225 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 2011–2022 |
State v. Lynch
green
2 sentences2018Because this Court has previously interpreted New Mexico's double jeopardy provision to afford greater protection than the Fifth Amendment, see Lynch , 2003-NMSC-020 , ¶ 13, 134 N.M. 139 , 74 P.3d 73 , Defendant had only to invoke New Mexico's double jeopardy provision in the district court and develop an adequate record to review the issue on appeal. 2018Because this Court has previously interpreted New Mexico's double jeopardy provision to afford greater protection than the Fifth Amendment, see Lynch , 2003-NMSC-020 , ¶ 13, 134 N.M. 139 , 74 P.3d 73 , Defendant had only to invoke New Mexico's double jeopardy provision in the district court and develop an adequate record to review the issue on appeal. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Adame
green
2 sentences2015Patane holds that, under the United States Constitution, “the failure to give Miranda warnings did not require suppression of evidence that was the fruit of a suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements.” State v. Adame, 2006-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 140 N.M. 258 , 142 P.3d 26 . 2015Patane holds that, under the United States Constitution, “the failure to give Miranda warnings did not require suppression of evidence that was the fruit of a suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements.” State v. Adame, 2006-NMCA-100, ¶ 10 , 140 N.M. 258 , 142 P.3d 26 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
ACLU OF NM v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences2010"We therefore limit our due process and equal protection analysis to the federal constitution, unpersuaded that the state constitution affords any greater protections." ACLU of N.M., 2006-NMCA-078, ¶ 18 , 139 N.M. 761 , 137 P.3d 1215 . 2010"We therefore limit our due process and equal protection analysis to the federal constitution, unpersuaded that the state constitution affords any greater protections." ACLU of N.M., 2006-NMCA-078, ¶ 18 , 139 N.M. 761 , 137 P.3d 1215 . | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2023Defendant’s argument for diverging from the federal “open fields” analysis is raised for the first time in his reply brief.3 We typically do not address such arguments, see State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶ 32, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 , because doing so deprives the appellee of the opportunity to respond as contemplated by the rules of appellate procedure, see State v. Martinez, 2005-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 137 N.M. 432 , 112 P.3d 293 (declining to consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief because doing so would deprive the opposing party of an opportunity to respond). 2023Defendant’s argument for diverging from the federal “open fields” analysis is raised for the first time in his reply brief.3 We typically do not address such arguments, see State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶ 32, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 , because doing so deprives the appellee of the opportunity to respond as contemplated by the rules of appellate procedure, see State v. Martinez, 2005-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 137 N.M. 432 , 112 P.3d 293 (declining to consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief because doing so would deprive the opposing party of an opportunity to respond). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Fairweather
green
2 sentences2023Defendant’s argument for diverging from the federal “open fields” analysis is raised for the first time in his reply brief.3 We typically do not address such arguments, see State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶ 32, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 , because doing so deprives the appellee of the opportunity to respond as contemplated by the rules of appellate procedure, see State v. Martinez, 2005-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 137 N.M. 432 , 112 P.3d 293 (declining to consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief because doing so would deprive the opposing party of an opportunity to respond). 2023Defendant’s argument for diverging from the federal “open fields” analysis is raised for the first time in his reply brief.3 We typically do not address such arguments, see State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶ 32, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 , because doing so deprives the appellee of the opportunity to respond as contemplated by the rules of appellate procedure, see State v. Martinez, 2005-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 137 N.M. 432 , 112 P.3d 293 (declining to consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief because doing so would deprive the opposing party of an opportunity to respond). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Paananen
green
1 sentence2018The motion was denied. 5 {4} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and 6 fact.” State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031, ¶ 10 , 357 P.3d 958 (internal quotation 7 marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Rowell
green
2 sentences2015Id. ¶ 19 (citation omitted); see State v. Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶ 34 , 147 N.M. 134 , 217 P.3d 1032 (rejecting widely criticized United States Supreme Court decision weakening a right “beyond a point which may be countenanced under our state constitution”); State v. Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶¶ 20-23 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (declining to follow United States Supreme Court decisions criticized in legal literature as “devoid of a reasoned basis in constitutional doctrine”); N.M. 2015Id. ¶ 19 (citation omitted); see State v. Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶ 34 , 147 N.M. 134 , 217 P.3d 1032 (rejecting widely criticized United States Supreme Court decision weakening a right “beyond a point which may be countenanced under our state constitution”); State v. Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶¶ 20-23 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (declining to follow United States Supreme Court decisions criticized in legal literature as “devoid of a reasoned basis in constitutional doctrine”); N.M. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Phelps Dodge Tyrone, Inc. v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission
green
2 sentences2011Water Quality Control Comm’n, 2006-NMCA-115, ¶ 37 , 140 N.M. 464 , 143 P.3d 502 (“[T]here may be reasons, such as differences in statutory language, that may make federal law or law from other jurisdictions inapplicable or inappropriate in New Mexico ____”); see, e.g., State v. Badoni 2003-NMCA-009, ¶ 16 , 133 N.M. 257 , 62 P.3d 348 (“[Fundamental differences between federal and New Mexico’s rules of pleading make federal case law on the issue of notification distinguishable ----”); cf. State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 14-16 , 130 N.M. 386 , 25 P.3d 225 (noting that New Mexico may 2011Water Quality Control Comm’n, 2006-NMCA-115, ¶ 37 , 140 N.M. 464 , 143 P.3d 502 (“[T]here may be reasons, such as differences in statutory language, that may make federal law or law from other jurisdictions inapplicable or inappropriate in New Mexico ____”); see, e.g., State v. Badoni 2003-NMCA-009, ¶ 16 , 133 N.M. 257 , 62 P.3d 348 (“[Fundamental differences between federal and New Mexico’s rules of pleading make federal case law on the issue of notification distinguishable ----”); cf. State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 14-16 , 130 N.M. 386 , 25 P.3d 225 (noting that New Mexico may | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Breit
green
2 sentences1999As a matter of principle, we prefer to interpret our State Constitution in conformity with federal doctrine. "[W]e recognize the value of uniformity in the advancement and application of the rights guaranteed by both our state and federal constitutions ." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067 , ¶ 27, 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 ,. 1999As a matter of principle, we prefer to interpret our State Constitution in conformity with federal doctrine. "[W]e recognize the value of uniformity in the advancement and application of the rights guaranteed by both our state and federal constitutions ." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067 , ¶ 27, 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 ,. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Rhein v. ADT Automotive, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999As a matter of principle, we prefer to interpret our State Constitution in conformity with federal doctrine. “[W]e recognize the value of uniformity in the advancement and application of the rights guaranteed by both our state and federal constitutions Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ¶27 , 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 ,. 1999As a matter of principle, we prefer to interpret our State Constitution in conformity with federal doctrine. "[W]e recognize the value of uniformity in the advancement and application of the rights guaranteed by both our state and federal constitutions ." Breit, 1996-NMSC-067 , ¶ 27, 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 ,. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.