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 1998–2024 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. Rojogreen2 sentences2024However, review of an unpreserved speedy trial claim for fundamental error is reserved for circumstances in which there has been “a striking violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial [such] that it would be appropriate to consider that issue for the first time on appeal.” See State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 53 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024However, review of an unpreserved speedy trial claim for fundamental error is reserved for circumstances in which there has been “a striking violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial [such] that it would be appropriate to consider that issue for the first time on appeal.” See State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 53 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 6 |
Acacia Mutual Life Insurance v. American General Life Insurancegreen1 sentence2015See State v. Munoz, 1990-NMCA-109 , ¶ 19, 111 N.M. 118 , 802 P.2d 11 1 23 (stating that if counsel had properly briefed the issue, we “would deny defendant’s 2 motion to amend because we find the issue he seeks to raise to be so without merit as 3 not to be viable”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Munozgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Munoz, 1990-NMCA-109 , ¶ 19, 111 N.M. 118 , 802 P.2d 11 1 23 (stating that if counsel had properly briefed the issue, we “would deny defendant’s 2 motion to amend because we find the issue he seeks to raise to be so without merit as 3 not to be viable”). | 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. Valdez
green
2 sentences1998Thus, as in Valdez, 109 N.M. at 763 , 790 P.2d at 1044 , “[n]othing in the record suggests such a striking violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial that it would be appropriate to consider that issue for the first time on appeal” under Rule 12 — 216(B). 1998Thus, as in Valdez, 109 N.M. at 763 , 790 P.2d at 1044 , “[n]othing in the record suggests such a striking violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial that it would be appropriate to consider that issue for the first time on appeal” under Rule 12 — 216(B). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.