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 2007–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kersey v. Hatchgreen2 sentences2020“Thus, a court establishes a new rule when its decision is flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent and is an explicit overruling of an earlier holding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2015See Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 2, 54 ; Kersey, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 (noting that “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent and is an explicit overruling of an earlier holding” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2015See Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020 , 17 ¶¶ 2, 54; Kersey, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 (noting that “a court establishes a new rule 18 when its decision is flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent and is an 12 1 explicit overruling of an earlier holding” (internal quotation marks and citations 2 omitted)). 2015See Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 2, 54 ; Kersey, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 (noting that “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent and is an explicit overruling of an earlier holding” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramirez v. State
green
1 sentence2020“A rule that is not deemed a ‘new rule’ by this test may apply retroactively.” Ramirez, 2014-NMSC-023, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Whorton v. Bockting
green
2 sentences2010Thus, “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is ‘flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent’ and is an ‘explicit overruling of an earlier holding.’” Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (quoting Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007)). {17} We conclude that Frazier announced a new rule because it was flatly inconsistent with our precedent governing multiple convictions for felony murder and the predicate felony. 2010Thus, “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is ‘flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent’ and is an ‘explicit overruling of an earlier holding.’” Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (quoting Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007)). {17} We conclude that Frazier announced a new rule because it was flatly inconsistent with our precedent governing multiple convictions for felony murder and the predicate felony. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Frawley
red
2 sentences2010Thus, “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is ‘flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent’ and is an ‘explicit overruling of an earlier holding.’” Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (quoting Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007)). {17} We conclude that Frazier announced a new rule because it was flatly inconsistent with our precedent governing multiple convictions for felony murder and the predicate felony. 2010Thus, “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is ‘flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent’ and is an ‘explicit overruling of an earlier holding.’” Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (quoting Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007)). {17} We conclude that Frazier announced a new rule because it was flatly inconsistent with our precedent governing multiple convictions for felony murder and the predicate felony. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2007The first of these cases was State v. Wilson , which held that Section 31-18-15.1 is constitutional under Apprendi. 2001-NMCA-032, ¶ 4 , 130 N.M. 319 , 24 P.3d 351 . 2007The first of these cases was State v. Wilson , which held that Section 31-18-15.1 is constitutional under Apprendi. 2001-NMCA-032, ¶ 4 , 130 N.M. 319 , 24 P.3d 351 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.