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 1 courts 2014–2025 2 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. Fierrogreen2 sentences2014See Fierro, 2012-NMCA-054, ¶ 40 . {24} The approximate one-month period between March 18, 2010, when the State failed to appear for a status hearing until April 14, 2010, when a new prosecutor entered her appearance and indicated that the State was ready to proceed without delay, weighs against the State, but not heavily. 2014See Fierro, 2012-NMCA-054, ¶ 40 . {24} The approximate one-month period between March 18, 2010, when the State failed to appear for a status hearing until April 14, 2010, when a new prosecutor entered her appearance and indicated that the State was ready to proceed without delay, weighs against the State, but not heavily. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Sloangreen1 sentence2024See Sloan, 2019-NMSC-019, ¶ 13 (“If a hearing was not a critical stage and our rules did not require [the d]efendant’s presence, his right to be present was not violated.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Romerogreen1 sentence2015Instead, he 9 confirms that the district court held an informal hearing on May 21, 2015 “at which 10 representatives of New Mexico Gas Company and Public Service Company of New 11 Mexico [(PNM)] testified[, and t]he hearing was continued to August 12, 2015.” [MIO 12 3] He also recognizes that the district court held a status hearing and heard testimony 13 from another representative from PNM on August 12, 2015, and the district court 14 issued a written order regarding the utility lines on September 4, 2015. [MIO 3-4] 15 {5} Despite these hearings and the September 4, 2015 order, in which the | 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. Le Mier
green
1 sentence2025Defendant was charged with numerous allegations of sexual offenses against several minors, including Victim D.S. [BIC 2] The district court assigned the case to Track 3 under LR2-308, setting the trial for November 2022 and requiring all witness interviews to be completed by July 2022. [BIC 2] The State filed a notice of compliance with witness interviews in December 2021, asserting that Defendant had not requested interviews within twenty-one days after the issuance of the scheduling order. [BIC 2] At a status hearing in October 2022, the State notified the district court that it was still wa | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Vigil-Giron
green
1 sentence2017State v. Vigil- 12 Giron, 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60 , 327 P.3d 1129 (stating the rule that appellate courts 13 will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue and that, when 14 given no cited authority, we assume no such authority exists). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Thornton v. Gamble
green
1 sentence2015Instead, he 9 confirms that the district court held an informal hearing on May 21, 2015 “at which 10 representatives of New Mexico Gas Company and Public Service Company of New 11 Mexico [(PNM)] testified[, and t]he hearing was continued to August 12, 2015.” [MIO 12 3] He also recognizes that the district court held a status hearing and heard testimony 13 from another representative from PNM on August 12, 2015, and the district court 14 issued a written order regarding the utility lines on September 4, 2015. [MIO 3-4] 15 {5} Despite these hearings and the September 4, 2015 order, in which the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.