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 2 courts 1935–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carmelo Claudio Enrique Maymi v. Robert Snyder, Warden, Delaware Correctional Center M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of the State of Delawaregreen1 sentence2000See Claudio, 68 F.3d at 1575 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences1992See Montoya, 114 N.M. at 224 , 836 P.2d at 670 . 1992See Montoya, 114 N.M. at 224 , 836 P.2d at 670 . | 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. Simpson
green
2 sentences1942State v. Simpson, 39 N.M. 271 , 46 P.2d 49 .” We applied the rule of the Diaz case to-the Hall case because Rule 70-108 fell within the prohibition of N.M.Const. 1942State v. Simpson, 39 N.M. 271 , 46 P.2d 49 .” We applied the rule of the Diaz case to-the Hall case because Rule 70-108 fell within the prohibition of N.M.Const. | 2 | 1935–1942 |
cluster 739739
green
1 sentence2009Amlani held that “a change in defense counsel caused by the prosecution’s misconduct itself establishes the requisite prejudice to vacate [the defendant’s] conviction” and that “the allegations state a Sixth Amendment claim.” Id. at 711-12 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hayes v. State
green
1 sentence2000If there is to be a change in the rule or the policy underlying the rule, it must come through the normal rule-making process.” Id. {22} We understand the federal cases to have construed the federal rule to avoid any question under the federal constitution that a defendant has been denied his or her right to a fair and impartial jury by post-submission substitution. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Martinez v. Earth Resources Co.
green
2 sentences1977Martinez v. Earth Resources, Inc., 90 N.M. 590 , 566 P.2d 838 (Ct.App.1977), by way of dicta, stated that a statute of limitations is not jurisdictional. 1977Martinez v. Earth Resources, Inc., 90 N.M. 590 , 566 P.2d 838 (Ct.App.1977), by way of dicta, stated that a statute of limitations is not jurisdictional. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Mitchell v. Ridgway
green
2 sentences1974Mitchell v. Ridgway, 77 N.M. 249 , 421 P.2d 778 (1966). 1974Mitchell v. Ridgway, 77 N.M. 249 , 421 P.2d 778 (1966). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.