development rule in New Mexico

2021Martinez v. McDermett, 1995-NMCA-060 , ¶ 8, 120 N.M. 327 , 901 P.2d 745 (holding that completion of wells and ditches sufficient to irrigate eighty-four acres did constitute diligence with regard to the entire tract for purposes of the doctrine of relation when the works were never used to irrigate more than twenty acres). {52} In sum, the concept of relation has been applied to determine priority to water since the earliest days of the development of the doctrine of prior appropriation.

2021Martinez v. McDermett, 1995-NMCA-060 , ¶ 8, 120 N.M. 327 , 901 P.2d 745 (holding that completion of wells and ditches sufficient to irrigate eighty-four acres did constitute diligence with regard to the entire tract for purposes of the doctrine of relation when the works were never used to irrigate more than twenty acres). {52} In sum, the concept of relation has been applied to determine priority to water since the earliest days of the development of the doctrine of prior appropriation.

2005A. {12} The community caretaker exception was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).

2005A. {12} The community caretaker exception was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl.1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir. 1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); Stevens

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1979To avoid this recitation of a universally accepted rule as well as the overwhelming weight of authority, see Tate v. Canonica, supra ; Cauverien v. De Metz, 20 Misc.2d 144 , 188 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1959); Lancaster v. Montesi, 216 Tenn. 50 , 390 S.W.2d 217 (1965); Runyon v. Reid, 510 P.2d 943 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. Stewart, 183 Tenn. 176 , 191 S.W.2d 439 (1946); Waas v. Ashland Day & Night Bank, 201 Ky. 469 , 257 S.W. 29 (1923), 35 A.L.R. 1441 (1925); Lucas, supra; *731 Scheffer v. Railroad Co., 105 U.S. 249 , 26 L.Ed. 1070 (1881); Salsedo v. Palmer, 278 F. 92 (2nd Cir.1921), 23 A.L.R. 1262 (1923); S

1971Here, the authors comment that defendant's superior knowledge, or access to it, has been a very persuasive factor in the development of the principle and "normally, therefore, a verdict cannot be directed for defendant in a res ipsa loquitur case, solely upon the basis of defendant's evidence of his own due care." *187 In New Mexico, its first discussion arose in Hepp v. Quickel Auto & Supply Co., 37 N.M. 525, 528 , 25 P.2d 197 (1933).

1971Here, the authors comment that defendant’s superior knowledge, or access to it, has been a very persuasive factor in the development of the principle and “normally, therefore, a verdict' cannot be directed for defendant in a res. ipsa loquitur case, solely upon the basis of defendant’s evidence of his own due care.” In New Mexico, its first discussion arose in Hepp v. Quickel Auto & Supply Co., 37 N.M, 525, 528, 25 P.2d 197 (1933).

1929C.) 36 F. 229 ; Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670 , 10 S. Ct. 354 , 33 L.

1929C.) 36 F. 229 ; Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670 , 10 S. Ct. 354 , 33 L.

1929C.) 36 F. 229 ; Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670 , 10 S. Ct. 354 , 33 L.

1921In Lockhart v. Rollins, 2 Idaho, 540 , 21 Pac. 413 , a man had been employed as a watchman to take care of the buildings and improvements upon a mining claim at a salary of $500 a year.

1921In Lockhart v. Rollins, 2 Idaho, 540 , 21 Pac. 413 , a man had been employed as a watchman to take care of the buildings and improvements upon a mining claim at a salary of $500 a year.

1921In Power v. Sla, 24 Mont. 243 , 61 Pac. 468 , while the court had under consideration the question of pleading, it nevertheless adhered to the same doctrine that the annual expenditure, in order to hold a mining claim, must be made for the development of the claim and to facilitate the extraction of the minerals it may contain.

1921In Power v. Sla, 24 Mont. 243 , 61 Pac. 468 , while the court had under consideration the question of pleading, it nevertheless adhered to the same doctrine that the annual expenditure, in order to hold a mining claim, must be made for the development of the claim and to facilitate the extraction of the minerals it may contain.