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 1970–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ed Black's Chevrolet Center, Inc. v. Melichargreen2 sentences2012Brown v. Jimerson, 95 N.M. 191, 192-93 , 619 P.2d 1235, 1236-37 (1980); see Ed Black’s Chevrolet Ctr., Inc. v. Melichar, 81 N.M. 602, 604 , 471 P.2d 172, 174 (1970) (“In no case will a waiver be presumed or implied, contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, unless, by his conduct, the opposite party has been misled, to his prejudice, into the honest belief that such waiver was intended or consented to.”); see also Brown v. Taylor, 120 N.M. 302, 305 , 901 P.2d 720, 723 (1995) (holding that a theory of implied waivermustbe supported by evidence th 2012Brown v. Jimerson, 95 N.M. 191, 192-93 , 619 P.2d 1235, 1236-37 (1980); see Ed Black’s Chevrolet Ctr., Inc. v. Melichar, 81 N.M. 602, 604 , 471 P.2d 172, 174 (1970) (“In no case will a waiver be presumed or implied, contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, unless, by his conduct, the opposite party has been misled, to his prejudice, into the honest belief that such waiver was intended or consented to.”); see also Brown v. Taylor, 120 N.M. 302, 305 , 901 P.2d 720, 723 (1995) (holding that a theory of implied waivermustbe supported by evidence th | 4 | 4 |
Brown v. Jimersongreen2 sentences2025In no case will a waiver be presumed or implied contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, unless, by [their] conduct, the opposite party has been misled, to [their] prejudice, into the honest belief that such waiver was intended or consented to.”1 Brown v. Jimerson, 1980-NMSC-125 , ¶ 6, 95 N.M. 191 , 619 P.2d 1235 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1We take a moment to briefly address Defendants’ knowledge of the MAA and their right to enforce arbitration. 2025In no case will a waiver be presumed or implied contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, unless, by [their] conduct, the opposite party has been misled, to [their] prejudice, into the honest belief that such waiver was intended or consented to.”1 Brown v. Jimerson, 1980-NMSC-125 , ¶ 6, 95 N.M. 191 , 619 P.2d 1235 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1We take a moment to briefly address Defendants’ knowledge of the MAA and their right to enforce arbitration. | 2 | 3 |
Brown v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2012Brown v. Jimerson, 95 N.M. 191, 192-93 , 619 P.2d 1235, 1236-37 (1980); see Ed Black’s Chevrolet Ctr., Inc. v. Melichar, 81 N.M. 602, 604 , 471 P.2d 172, 174 (1970) (“In no case will a waiver be presumed or implied, contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, unless, by his conduct, the opposite party has been misled, to his prejudice, into the honest belief that such waiver was intended or consented to.”); see also Brown v. Taylor, 120 N.M. 302, 305 , 901 P.2d 720, 723 (1995) (holding that a theory of implied waivermustbe supported by evidence th 2012Brown v. Jimerson, 95 N.M. 191, 192-93 , 619 P.2d 1235, 1236-37 (1980); see Ed Black’s Chevrolet Ctr., Inc. v. Melichar, 81 N.M. 602, 604 , 471 P.2d 172, 174 (1970) (“In no case will a waiver be presumed or implied, contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, unless, by his conduct, the opposite party has been misled, to his prejudice, into the honest belief that such waiver was intended or consented to.”); see also Brown v. Taylor, 120 N.M. 302, 305 , 901 P.2d 720, 723 (1995) (holding that a theory of implied waivermustbe supported by evidence th | 2 | 2 |
Arnold v. Krewsongreen1 sentence1999Under certain circumstances, a second type of waiver sounding in equity and based on acquiescence, may arise “where the evidence shows the existence of an agreement ... supported by consideration, and where the agreement has been acquiesced in over a period of time under circumstances giving rise to estoppel.” Id. at 568, 874 P.2d at 29 (citing Arnold v. Krewson, 834 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Mo.Ct.App.1992)). {13} Our Supreme Court has previously stated that, “ ‘[i]n no case will a waiver be presumed or implied, contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. Wagnergreen2 sentences1994Hunter v. Hunter, 669 P.2d 430, 432 (Utah 1983); see also Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wash.2d 94 , 621 P.2d 1279, 1284 (1980) (en banc). 1994Hunter v. Hunter, 669 P.2d 430, 432 (Utah 1983); see also Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wash.2d 94 , 621 P.2d 1279, 1284 (1980) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Huntergreen1 sentence1994Hunter v. Hunter, 669 P.2d 430, 432 (Utah 1983); see also Wagner v. Wagner, 95 Wash.2d 94 , 621 P.2d 1279, 1284 (1980) (en banc). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sisneroz Ex Rel. Angelin G. v. Polanco
green
1 sentence2009In no case will a waiver be presumed or implied unless Wife’s actions misled Husband “to his prejudice, into the honest belief that such waiver was intended or consented to.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {35} Here, there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s conclusion that Wife did not waive her rights to the PERA benefits. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McCurry v. McCurrSy
green
2 sentences1999Under certain circumstances, a second type of waiver sounding in equity and based on acquiescence, may arise “where the evidence shows the existence of an agreement ... supported by consideration, and where the agreement has been acquiesced in over a period of time under circumstances giving rise to estoppel.” Id. at 568, 874 P.2d at 29 (citing Arnold v. Krewson, 834 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Mo.Ct.App.1992)). {13} Our Supreme Court has previously stated that, “ ‘[i]n no case will a waiver be presumed or implied, contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, 1999Under certain circumstances, a second type of waiver sounding in equity and based on acquiescence, may arise “where the evidence shows the existence of an agreement ... supported by consideration, and where the agreement has been acquiesced in over a period of time under circumstances giving rise to estoppel.” Id. at 568, 874 P.2d at 29 (citing Arnold v. Krewson, 834 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Mo.Ct.App.1992)). {13} Our Supreme Court has previously stated that, “ ‘[i]n no case will a waiver be presumed or implied, contrary to the intention of the party whose rights would be injuriously affected thereby, | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Chase v. National Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences1970Chase v. National Indem nity Company, 129 Cal.App.2d 853 , 278 P.2d 68 (1954). 1970Chase v. National Indem nity Company, 129 Cal.App.2d 853 , 278 P.2d 68 (1954). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.