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.
7 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2009 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branchgreen2 sentences2008But see Belser v. O’Cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, ¶ 3 , 137 N.M. 623 , 114 P.3d 303 (“A district court has control over proceedings before it.”); Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 327 , 552 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1976) (“[Tjrial courts have supervisory control over their dockets and inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”). {25} Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiffs willingly and knowingly participated in the non-jury trial. 2008But see Belser v. O'Cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, ¶ 3 , 137 N.M. 623 , 114 P.3d 303 ("A district court has control over proceedings before it."); Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 327 , 552 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1976) ("[T]rial courts have supervisory control over their dockets and inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases."). {25} Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiffs willingly and knowingly participated in the non-jury trial. | 2 | 2 |
Candelaria v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Districtgreen2 sentences2004“Absent statutory authority or supreme court rule, appellate courts may not extend the time for appeal, even to relieve against mistake, inadvertence or accident.” Candelaria v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist, 107 N.M. 579, 581 , 761 P.2d 457, 459 (Ct.App.1988). 2004“Absent statutory authority or supreme court rule, appellate courts may not extend the time for appeal, even to relieve against mistake, inadvertence or accident.” Candelaria v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist, 107 N.M. 579, 581 , 761 P.2d 457, 459 (Ct.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Belser v. O'CLEIREACHAINgreen2 sentences2008But see Belser v. O’Cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, ¶ 3 , 137 N.M. 623 , 114 P.3d 303 (“A district court has control over proceedings before it.”); Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 327 , 552 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1976) (“[Tjrial courts have supervisory control over their dockets and inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”). {25} Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiffs willingly and knowingly participated in the non-jury trial. 2008But see Belser v. O’Cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, ¶ 3 , 137 N.M. 623 , 114 P.3d 303 (“A district court has control over proceedings before it.”); Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 327 , 552 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1976) (“[Tjrial courts have supervisory control over their dockets and inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”). {25} Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiffs willingly and knowingly participated in the non-jury trial. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch
green
2 sentences2008But see Belser v. O’Cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, ¶ 3 , 137 N.M. 623 , 114 P.3d 303 (“A district court has control over proceedings before it.”); Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 327 , 552 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1976) (“[Tjrial courts have supervisory control over their dockets and inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”). {25} Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiffs willingly and knowingly participated in the non-jury trial. 2008But see Belser v. O'Cleireachain, 2005-NMCA-073, ¶ 3 , 137 N.M. 623 , 114 P.3d 303 ("A district court has control over proceedings before it."); Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 327 , 552 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1976) ("[T]rial courts have supervisory control over their dockets and inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases."). {25} Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiffs willingly and knowingly participated in the non-jury trial. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
DiPirro v. BONDO CORPORATION
green
2 sentences2008When Allstate first requested that the district court conduct a non jury evidentiary hearing related to the disputed facts, Plaintiffs objected in writing because “Allstate has ignored the jury demand and its role to decide disputed issuefs] of fact,” and “the evidentiary hearing would invade the rights of the parties to a jury trial.” This was all Plaintiffs had to do to preserve their objection, and Plaintiffs were not required to repeat the same objection each time the issue was raised. {72} In DiPirro v. Bondo Corp., 153 Cal.App.4th 150 , 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 722 (2007), the plaintiffs filed a c 2008When Allstate first requested that the district court conduct a non jury evidentiary hearing related to the disputed facts, Plaintiffs objected in writing because “Allstate has ignored the jury demand and its role to decide disputed issuefs] of fact,” and “the evidentiary hearing would invade the rights of the parties to a jury trial.” This was all Plaintiffs had to do to preserve their objection, and Plaintiffs were not required to repeat the same objection each time the issue was raised. {72} In DiPirro v. Bondo Corp., 153 Cal.App.4th 150 , 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 722 (2007), the plaintiffs filed a c | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State Ex Rel. State Highway & Transportation Department v. City of Sunland Park
green
2 sentences2007Dep’t v. City of Sunland Park, 1999-NMCA-143, ¶11 , 128 N.M. 371 , 993 P.2d 85 (stating that issues not argued on appeal will not be considered). {10} On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the complaint states a cause of action under five theories: (1) aiding and abetting Allstate’s breach of its fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs; (2) aiding and abetting Allstate’s violation of various provisions in the New Mexico Insurance Code (Insurance Code), see NMSA 1978, § 59A-1-1 (1993); (3) direct violations of various provisions in the Insurance Code; (4) tortious interference with contractual rights; and (5 2007Dep’t v. City of Sunland Park, 1999-NMCA-143, ¶11 , 128 N.M. 371 , 993 P.2d 85 (stating that issues not argued on appeal will not be considered). {10} On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the complaint states a cause of action under five theories: (1) aiding and abetting Allstate’s breach of its fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs; (2) aiding and abetting Allstate’s violation of various provisions in the New Mexico Insurance Code (Insurance Code), see NMSA 1978, § 59A-1-1 (1993); (3) direct violations of various provisions in the Insurance Code; (4) tortious interference with contractual rights; and (5 | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Ohlson v. Kent Nowlin Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2009To the extent Allstate cites Ohlson v. Kent Nowlin Construction Co., 99 N.M. 539 , 660 P.2d 1021 (Ct.App.1983), for the proposition that the McKinsey documents were not relevant and their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect because they constitute evidence of “unrelated matters,” we disagree. 2009To the extent Allstate cites Ohlson v. Kent Nowlin Construction Co., 99 N.M. 539 , 660 P.2d 1021 (Ct.App.1983), for the proposition that the McKinsey documents were not relevant and their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect because they constitute evidence of “unrelated matters,” we disagree. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McMillan v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences2005Co., 2004-NMSC-002, ¶8 , 135 N.M. 17 , 84 P.3d 65 . {10} In McMillan, two automobile insurance policyholders (insureds) challenged the validity of a clause in Allstate’s standard uninsured motorist (UM) insurance endorsement that provided for arbitration of UM claims only upon the consent of both Allstate and the insured. 2005Co., 2004-NMSC-002, ¶8 , 135 N.M. 17 , 84 P.3d 65 . {10} In McMillan, two automobile insurance policyholders (insureds) challenged the validity of a clause in Allstate’s standard uninsured motorist (UM) insurance endorsement that provided for arbitration of UM claims only upon the consent of both Allstate and the insured. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.