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 1971–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1989Defendant argues that, even though a defendant is not entitled to claim prejudice in the court’s failure to dismiss prospective jurors for bias when he has not used all of his twelve statutory challenges, State v. Smith, 92 N.M. 533, 540-41 , 591 P.2d 664, 671-72 (1979), under the facts in the present case, the reasoning behind that requirement is not applicable. 1989Defendant argues that, even though a defendant is not entitled to claim prejudice in the court’s failure to dismiss prospective jurors for bias when he has not used all of his twelve statutory challenges, State v. Smith, 92 N.M. 533, 540-41 , 591 P.2d 664, 671-72 (1979), under the facts in the present case, the reasoning behind that requirement is not applicable. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kirby v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2013If this were otherwise, plaintiffs could simply ignore dismissals and file the same claim as many times as they wished, so long as the claim never progressed to a determination of the substantive issues. 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 66 , 148 N.M. 106 , 231 P.3d 87 . {11} We note that this rule applies to preclude claims (claim preclusion/res judicata), but not issues (issue preclusion/collateral estoppel). 2013If this were otherwise, plaintiffs could simply ignore dismissals and file the same claim as many times as they wished, so long as the claim never progressed to a determination of the substantive issues. 2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 66 , 148 N.M. 106 , 231 P.3d 87 . {11} We note that this rule applies to preclude claims (claim preclusion/res judicata), but not issues (issue preclusion/collateral estoppel). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co.
yellow
2 sentences1983The reasoning behind the rule is well stated in Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245 , 43 S.Ct. 83 , 67 L.Ed. 237 (1922). “... 1983The reasoning behind the rule is well stated in Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245 , 43 S.Ct. 83 , 67 L.Ed. 237 (1922). “... | 1 | 1983–1983 |
American Bank of Commerce v. Covolo
green
2 sentences1980In American Bank of Commerce v. Covolo, 88 N.M. 405 , 540 P.2d 1294 (1975) a creditor failed to perfect its security interest in a liquor license; when the principal declared bankruptcy, the creditor sued the guarantor on the principal’s indebtedness. 1980In American Bank of Commerce v. Covolo, 88 N.M. 405 , 540 P.2d 1294 (1975) a creditor failed to perfect its security interest in a liquor license; when the principal declared bankruptcy, the creditor sued the guarantor on the principal’s indebtedness. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Surkin v. Charteris
green
2 sentences1972If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him." [Emphasis added] The reasoning behind the rule and the guiding principles are set forth in Surkin v. Charteris, 197 F.2d 77 (5th Cir.1952), where the court stated: "The general principles governing the motion for summary judgment are well established. 1972If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” [Emphasis added] The reasoning behind the rule and the guiding principles are set forth in Surkin v. Charteris, 197 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1952), where the court stated: “The general principles governing the motion for summary judgment are well established. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Mitchell v. Allison
green
2 sentences1971A., 1953], The reasoning behind the rule is stated in Mitchell v. Allison, 54 N.M. 56 , 213 P.2d 231 (1949). 1971A., 1953], The reasoning behind the rule is stated in Mitchell v. Allison, 54 N.M. 56 , 213 P.2d 231 (1949). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.