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 1994–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2024While the district court may inquire further and require more information from a party before admitting expert testimony, see State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (determining the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony when the expert was not able to explain the scientific phenomena at issue to the district court’s satisfaction), during cross- examination, Defendant conceded that marijuana can impair driving as follows: “You’ve stated that marijuana can impair driving, not too much question that it can’t, question is whe 2024While the district court may inquire further and require more information from a party before admitting expert testimony, see State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (determining the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony when the expert was not able to explain the scientific phenomena at issue to the district court’s satisfaction), during cross- examination, Defendant conceded that marijuana can impair driving as follows: “You’ve stated that marijuana can impair driving, not too much question that it can’t, question is whe | 1 | 4 |
State v. Lasworthgreen2 sentences2024While the district court may inquire further and require more information from a party before admitting expert testimony, see State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (determining the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony when the expert was not able to explain the scientific phenomena at issue to the district court’s satisfaction), during cross- examination, Defendant conceded that marijuana can impair driving as follows: “You’ve stated that marijuana can impair driving, not too much question that it can’t, question is whe 2024While the district court may inquire further and require more information from a party before admitting expert testimony, see State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (determining the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony when the expert was not able to explain the scientific phenomena at issue to the district court’s satisfaction), during cross- examination, Defendant conceded that marijuana can impair driving as follows: “You’ve stated that marijuana can impair driving, not too much question that it can’t, question is whe | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2004While we noted that the deficiencies in calculating the rate of error was troubling, we stated the deficiencies in that case “[spoke] to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.” Id. at 299 , 881 P.2d at 44 . 2004While we noted that the deficiencies in calculating the rate of error was troubling, we stated the deficiencies in that case “[spoke] to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.” Id. at 299 , 881 P.2d at 44 . | 2 | 1998–2004 |
State v. Montoya State v. Yap
green
1 sentence2024While the district court may inquire further and require more information from a party before admitting expert testimony, see State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (determining the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony when the expert was not able to explain the scientific phenomena at issue to the district court’s satisfaction), during cross- examination, Defendant conceded that marijuana can impair driving as follows: “You’ve stated that marijuana can impair driving, not too much question that it can’t, question is whe | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. John Ray Bonds (91-3610) Mark Verdi (91-3609) and Steven Wayne Yee (91-3608)
green
1 sentence1994We agree with the Sixth Circuit that “[t]he deficiencies in calculating the rate of error and the failure to conduct external blind proficiency tests are troubling.” Bonds, 12 F.3d at 560 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.