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 1963–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Badilla v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Badilla II, 2015-NMSC-029 , ¶ 26 8 (observing that where New Mexico lacks a definitive rule to apply provisions of the 9 UCC, our courts look to its interpretation by other jurisdictions). 10 {12} Defendants raise the reasonableness of the time Plaintiff took to file the 11 complaint, but not whether the complaint itself was a proper vehicle for notice. | 1 | 1 |
Lonnie F. Titchnell and Ella Titchnell v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010See Titchnell v. United States, 681 F.2d 165, 173 (3rd Cir.1982) ("Mere failure to act in accordance with one's own internal procedures, however, will not automatically thereby render a health care facility negligent."); FFE Transp. 2010See Titchnell v. United States, 681 F.2d 165, 173 (3rd Cir.1982) (“Mere failure to act in accordance with one’s own internal procedures, however, will not automatically thereby render a health care facility negligent.”); FFE Transp. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence2010The State has the burden to establish the necessary foundation for BAT i'esults and, absent a definitive rule or appropriate pretrial court order, we will not ‘Require the defense to file a pretrial motion simply to advise the prosecution that it may have a defect in its proof or some problem in establishing the appropriate evidentiary foundation.” State v. Cook, 9 S.W.3d 98, 99-100, 102 (Tenn.1999) (holding that “because the burden of establishing a foundation for the admissibility of a breath-alcohol test lies with the prosecution, a defendant may challenge its admissibility either before or | 1 | 1 |
State v. Apodacagreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302, 304 , 814 P.2d 1030, 1032 (Ct.App.1991) (observing that the district court made a specific finding that the officer did not have a pretextual purpose in stopping the defendant); Bolton, 111 N.M. at 35 , 801 P.2d at 103 (refusing to decide “whether to adopt a sole-bad-purpose test or a primary-bad-purpose test — or even whether to adopt a subjective test at all” where a defendant challenged his stop at a state police roadblock administered by both the state police and United States Border Patrol agents, on pretext grounds, but concluding that “the dist 2008See, e.g., State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302, 304 , 814 P.2d 1030, 1032 (Ct.App.1991) (observing that the district court made a specific finding that the officer did not have a pretextual purpose in stopping the defendant); Bolton, 111 N.M. at 35 , 801 P.2d at 103 (refusing to decide “whether to adopt a sole-bad-purpose test or a primary-bad-purpose test — or even whether to adopt a subjective test at all” where a defendant challenged his stop at a state police roadblock administered by both the state police and United States Border Patrol agents, on pretext grounds, but concluding that “the dist | 1 | 1 |
State v. BENJAMIN C.green2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302, 304 , 814 P.2d 1030, 1032 (Ct.App.1991) (observing that the district court made a specific finding that the officer did not have a pretextual purpose in stopping the defendant); Bolton, 111 N.M. at 35 , 801 P.2d at 103 (refusing to decide “whether to adopt a sole-bad-purpose test or a primary-bad-purpose test — or even whether to adopt a subjective test at all” where a defendant challenged his stop at a state police roadblock administered by both the state police and United States Border Patrol agents, on pretext grounds, but concluding that “the dist 2008See, e.g., State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302, 304 , 814 P.2d 1030, 1032 (Ct.App.1991) (observing that the district court made a specific finding that the officer did not have a pretextual purpose in stopping the defendant); Bolton, 111 N.M. at 35 , 801 P.2d at 103 (refusing to decide “whether to adopt a sole-bad-purpose test or a primary-bad-purpose test — or even whether to adopt a subjective test at all” where a defendant challenged his stop at a state police roadblock administered by both the state police and United States Border Patrol agents, on pretext grounds, but concluding that “the dist | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boltongreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302, 304 , 814 P.2d 1030, 1032 (Ct.App.1991) (observing that the district court made a specific finding that the officer did not have a pretextual purpose in stopping the defendant); Bolton, 111 N.M. at 35 , 801 P.2d at 103 (refusing to decide “whether to adopt a sole-bad-purpose test or a primary-bad-purpose test — or even whether to adopt a subjective test at all” where a defendant challenged his stop at a state police roadblock administered by both the state police and United States Border Patrol agents, on pretext grounds, but concluding that “the dist 2008See, e.g., State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302, 304 , 814 P.2d 1030, 1032 (Ct.App.1991) (observing that the district court made a specific finding that the officer did not have a pretextual purpose in stopping the defendant); Bolton, 111 N.M. at 35 , 801 P.2d at 103 (refusing to decide “whether to adopt a sole-bad-purpose test or a primary-bad-purpose test — or even whether to adopt a subjective test at all” where a defendant challenged his stop at a state police roadblock administered by both the state police and United States Border Patrol agents, on pretext grounds, but concluding that “the dist | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Badilla v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015This is the central issue we are called upon to decide in this case: which, if any, approach is consistent with New Mexico law. {17} The Court of Appeals aptly observed that, “[a]lthough other jurisdictions have addressed the issue of whether personal injury or UCC time limits apply to such cases with disparate results, New Mexico lacks a definitive rule.” Badilla, 2013-NMCA-058, ¶ 9 . 2015This is the central issue we are called upon to decide 14 in this case: which, if any, approach is consistent with New Mexico law. 15 {17} The Court of Appeals aptly observed that, “[a]lthough other jurisdictions have 16 addressed the issue of whether personal injury or UCC time limits apply to such cases 17 with disparate results, New Mexico lacks a definitive rule.” Badilla, 18 2013-NMCA-058, ¶ 9 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Loretto Literary Society v. Garcia
neutral
2 sentences1963The most definitive test for determining the question may be found in Loretto Literary & Benevolent Society v. Garcia, 18 N.M. 318 , 136 P. 858 . 1963The most definitive test for determining the question may be found in Loretto Literary & Benevolent Society v. Garcia, 18 N.M. 318 , 136 P. 858 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.