7 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roybal v. Lujan De La Fuente
green
2 sentences2021Id. (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2015Id. (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 3 | 2015–2021 |
Bank of Santa Fe v. Marcy Plaza Associates
green
1 sentence2009In order to bar a lawsuit under the doctrine of res judicata, four elements must be met: “(1) identity of parties or privies, (2) identity of capacity or character of persons for or against whom the claim is made, (3)[the] same cause of action, and (4)[the] same subject matter.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Miller v. Montgomery
green
2 sentences2006In Miller v. Montgomery, 77 N.M. 766 , 427 P.2d 275 (1967), the Court held that a creditor who gave a cashier’s check to counsel to bring a lawsuit on the claim and who brought the action within five weeks of receipt of the cheek acted within a reasonable period of time and that there was no accord and satisfaction precluding the creditor from bringing the action. 2006In Miller v. Montgomery, 77 N.M. 766 , 427 P.2d 275 (1967), the Court held that a creditor who gave a cashier’s check to counsel to bring a lawsuit on the claim and who brought the action within five weeks of receipt of the cheek acted within a reasonable period of time and that there was no accord and satisfaction precluding the creditor from bringing the action. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
FIRST NAT. BANK OF SANTA FE v. Espinoza
green
1 sentence1985Id. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Francis v. Rios
yellow
1 sentence1981While we think a zoning authority should consider restrictive covenants in a variance proceeding, as was suggested in Francis v. Rios, supra, the zoning authority is not bound by restrictive covenants in granting a variance. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.