written notice requirement in New Mexico

2019The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion.” Rule 1-007(B)(1) NMRA (emphases added); State v. Nichols, 2006-NMCA-017, ¶ 27 , 139 N.M. 72 , 128 P.3d 500 (reiterating that, “in order to preserve an error for appeal, it is essential that the ground or grounds of the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked” (emphasis added) (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

2019The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion.” Rule 1-007(B)(1) NMRA (emphases added); State v. Nichols, 2006-NMCA-017, ¶ 27 , 139 N.M. 72 , 128 P.3d 500 (reiterating that, “in order to preserve an error for appeal, it is essential that the ground or grounds of the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked” (emphasis added) (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

2008Id.

2006Id. (“No written notice is required to be given where the employer or any superintendent or foreman or other agent in charge of the work in connection with which the accident occurred had actual knowledge of its occurrence.”). {34} The purpose of the notice requirement is “to protect the employer, allowing it to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding an injury while the facts are accessible.” Herman, 111 N.M. at 555 , 807 P.2d at 739 .

2006Id. (“No written notice is required to be given where the employer or any superintendent or foreman or other agent in charge of the work in connection with which the accident occurred had actual knowledge of its occurrence.”). {34} The purpose of the notice requirement is “to protect the employer, allowing it to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding an injury while the facts are accessible.” Herman, 111 N.M. at 555 , 807 P.2d at 739 .

1993Id.

1988Martinez v. City of Clovis, 95 N.M. 654 , 625 P.2d 583 (Ct.App.1980).

1988Martinez v. City of Clovis, 95 N.M. 654 , 625 P.2d 583 (Ct.App.1980).

1983The time for giving notice in a medical malpractice action is calculated “from the time the injury manifests itself in a physically objective manner and is ascertainable.” Peralta v. Martinez, 90 N.M. 391 , 564 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1977) (emphasis in original opinion).

1983The time for giving notice in a medical malpractice action is calculated “from the time the injury manifests itself in a physically objective manner and is ascertainable.” Peralta v. Martinez, 90 N.M. 391 , 564 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1977) (emphasis in original opinion).

1980In Curran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 181 Pa.Super. 578 , 124 A.2d 404 (1956), the record disclosed that claimant was absent from work without notice twice in one month and five times the next, after which he received a written notice warning that future absence without notice would result in dismissal.

1980In Curran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 181 Pa.Super. 578 , 124 A.2d 404 (1956), the record disclosed that claimant was absent from work without notice twice in one month and five times the next, after which he received a written notice warning that future absence without notice would result in dismissal.