49 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paz v. Tijerinagreen2 sentences2025Therefore, it would be an abuse of discretion by this Court to award attorney[] fees to [Appellant]. [RP 71] {6} On June 17, 2024, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. [RP 72] On July 8, 2024, the district court scheduled a hearing on the motion for reconsideration for July 22, 2024 at 10:40 a.m. [RP 88] However, on July 22, 2024, the district court entered an order granting Appellant’s motion for attorney fees at 9:02 a.m., prior to the start time of the scheduled hearing on the motion. [RP 90] The district court found that the motion was well-taken and that Appellant was entitled to 2025Therefore, it would be an abuse of discretion by this Court to award attorney[] fees to [Appellant]. [RP 71] {6} On June 17, 2024, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. [RP 72] On July 8, 2024, the district court scheduled a hearing on the motion for reconsideration for July 22, 2024 at 10:40 a.m. [RP 88] However, on July 22, 2024, the district court entered an order granting Appellant’s motion for attorney fees at 9:02 a.m., prior to the start time of the scheduled hearing on the motion. [RP 90] The district court found that the motion was well-taken and that Appellant was entitled to | 6 | 7 |
New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC- 11 028, ¶¶ 9, 15, 127 N.M. 654 , 986 P.2d 450 (identifying three categories of exceptions 12 to the American rule). 2024Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 1999-NMSC- 11 028, ¶¶ 9, 15, 127 N.M. 654 , 986 P.2d 450 (identifying three categories of exceptions 12 to the American rule). | 5 | 25 |
Montoya v. Villa Linda Mall, Ltd.green2 sentences2019Indemnity for Attorney Fees Under New Mexico Law 11 {10} “New Mexico adheres to the so-called American rule that, absent statutory 12 or other authority, litigants are responsible for their own attorney[] fees.” Montoya 13 v. Villa Linda Mall, Ltd, 1990-NMSC-053 , ¶ 6, 110 N.M. 128 , 793 P.2d 258 . 14 Likewise, in the insurance context, New Mexico adheres to the general rule that 15 attorney fees for prosecuting indemnification claims are not recoverable. 2019Indemnity for Attorney Fees Under New Mexico Law 11 {10} “New Mexico adheres to the so-called American rule that, absent statutory 12 or other authority, litigants are responsible for their own attorney[] fees.” Montoya 13 v. Villa Linda Mall, Ltd, 1990-NMSC-053 , ¶ 6, 110 N.M. 128 , 793 P.2d 258 . 14 Likewise, in the insurance context, New Mexico adheres to the general rule that 15 attorney fees for prosecuting indemnification claims are not recoverable. | 4 | 8 |
State v. Lynchgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Lynch, 2003-NMSC-020, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 139 , 74 P.3d 73 (discussing the American doctrine that a conviction of a lesser included offense is an implied acquittal of the greater offense that was considered by the same factfinder); id. ¶ 37 (Maes, C.J., dissenting but agreeing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 15, incorporates the implied acquittal doctrine). 2013See State v. Lynch, 2003-NMSC-020, ¶ 10 , 134 N.M. 139 , 74 P.3d 73 (discussing the American doctrine that a conviction of a lesser included offense is an implied acquittal of the greater offense that was considered by the same factfinder); id. ¶ 37 (Maes, C.J., dissenting but agreeing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 15, incorporates the implied acquittal doctrine). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tantongreen2 sentences2013And because “acquittal of a lesser offense necessarily included in a greater offense bars a subsequent prosecution for the greater offense,” State v. Tanton, 88 N.M. 333, 335 , 540 P.2d 813, 815 (1975), Defendant’s acquittal of second-degree murder, a lesser included offense of felony murder, bars a subsequent trial for the greater offense of felony murder. 2013And because “acquittal of a lesser offense necessarily included in a greater offense bars a subsequent prosecution for the greater offense,” State v. Tanton, 88 N.M. 333, 335 , 540 P.2d 813, 815 (1975), Defendant’s acquittal of second-degree murder, a lesser included offense of felony murder, bars a subsequent trial for the greater offense of felony murder. | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. New Mexico State Highway & Transportation Department v. Bacagreen2 sentences2007Dep’t v. Baca, 120 N.M. 1, 4-5 , 896 P.2d 1148, 1151-52 (1995) (adopting the bad-faith exception to the American rule). {23} It is well established that courts have the inherent authority “to impose a variety of sanctions on both litigants and attorneys in order to regulate their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings.” Id. at 4 , 896 P.2d at 1151 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2007Dep’t v. Baca, 120 N.M. 1, 4-5 , 896 P.2d 1148, 1151-52 (1995) (adopting the bad-faith exception to the American rule). {23} It is well established that courts have the inherent authority “to impose a variety of sanctions on both litigants and attorneys in order to regulate their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings.” Id. at 4 , 896 P.2d at 1151 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Herald v. Board of Regents of the Universitygreen2 sentences2025See Herald v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 2015-NMCA-104, ¶ 59 , 357 P.3d 438 (“Attorney fees awards are governed by the American rule, which provides that absent statutory or other authority, each party should bear its own attorney fees.” (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {15} We understand Defendants to argue that the fee award must be limited to work done to recover the statutory (specifically, the UPA) portion of the judgment, and that the district court erred in failing to separate Plaintiff’s claims and determine the time spent on each. 2025See Herald v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 2015-NMCA-104, ¶ 59 , 357 P.3d 438 (“Attorney fees awards are governed by the American rule, which provides that absent statutory or other authority, each party should bear its own attorney fees.” (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {15} We understand Defendants to argue that the fee award must be limited to work done to recover the statutory (specifically, the UPA) portion of the judgment, and that the district court erred in failing to separate Plaintiff’s claims and determine the time spent on each. | 1 | 1 |
Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque, N.A. v. Coluccigreen2 sentences2013Colucci, 117 N.M. at 379 , 872 P.2d at 352 (“Post[-]judgment interest on 12 judgments and decrees for payment of money is mandatory and accrues at the 13 statutory rate from the date of entry of judgment[.]”). 14 Attorney Fees 15 {17} Under the “American rule,” the parties to a lawsuit are responsible for their own 16 legal fees and costs. 2013Colucci, 117 N.M. at 379 , 872 P.2d at 352 (“Post[-]judgment interest on 12 judgments and decrees for payment of money is mandatory and accrues at the 13 statutory rate from the date of entry of judgment[.]”). 14 Attorney Fees 15 {17} Under the “American rule,” the parties to a lawsuit are responsible for their own 16 legal fees and costs. | 1 | 1 |
Landess v. GARDNER TURF GRASS, INC.green2 sentences2012See id. ¶ 16 5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Landess v. Gardner Turf 6 Grass, Inc., 2008-NMCA-159, ¶ 19 , 145 N.M. 372 , 198 P.3d 871 (“Courts have the 7 inherent power, independent of statute or rule, to award attorney fees to vindicate their 8 judicial authority and compensate the prevailing party for expenses incurred as a result 9 of frivolous or vexatious litigation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 10 [SRP 283-84] 11 Plaintiff has responded by arguing that, because both parties sought attorney 12 fees under the same provision of the settlemen 2012See id. ¶ 16 5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Landess v. Gardner Turf 6 Grass, Inc., 2008-NMCA-159, ¶ 19 , 145 N.M. 372 , 198 P.3d 871 (“Courts have the 7 inherent power, independent of statute or rule, to award attorney fees to vindicate their 8 judicial authority and compensate the prevailing party for expenses incurred as a result 9 of frivolous or vexatious litigation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 10 [SRP 283-84] 11 Plaintiff has responded by arguing that, because both parties sought attorney 12 fees under the same provision of the settlemen | 1 | 1 |
Dunleavy v. Millergreen2 sentences2007The “equal access” policy is based upon the underlying rationale that “one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit.” Id. ¶ 12 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Dunleavy v. Miller, 116 N.M. 353, 363 , 862 P.2d 1212, 1222 (1993) (recognizing that New Mexico courts have been unwilling to “allow litigation costs so high as to discourage litigants from bringing [or defending] lawsuits, no matter how meritorious they might in good faith believe their claims to be” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {19} In this case, Respondents did not 2007The “equal access” policy is based upon the underlying rationale that “one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit.” Id. ¶ 12 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. Dunleavy v. Miller, 116 N.M. 353, 363 , 862 P.2d 1212, 1222 (1993) (recognizing that New Mexico courts have been unwilling to “allow litigation costs so high as to discourage litigants from bringing [or defending] lawsuits, no matter how meritorious they might in good faith believe their claims to be” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {19} In this case, Respondents did not | 1 | 1 |
American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im 2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im | 1 | 1 |
Burke v. Arizona State Retirement Systemgreen2 sentences2006See Burke, 77 P.3d at 450 (declining to apply the common fund doctrine because the fee spreading element was not present); cf. NARAL, 1999-NMSC-028, ¶ 20 , 127 N.M. 654 , 986 P.2d 450 (noting that the common fund exception is consistent with the American rule because the fees are deducted from the recovery and "a losing litigant is no better or worse off as a result of the common fund doctrine's application" (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 2006See Burke, 77 P.3d at 450 (declining to apply the common fund doctrine because the fee spreading element was not present); cf. NARAL, 1999-NMSC-028, ¶ 20 , 127 N.M. 654 , 986 P.2d 450 (noting that the common fund exception is consistent with the American rule because the fees are deducted from the recovery and "a losing litigant is no better or worse off as a result of the common fund doctrine's application" (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. Claytongreen2 sentences2002See Sanchez v. Clayton, 117 N.M. 761, 766 , 877 P.2d 567, 572 (1994); Madrid v. Marquez, 2001-NMCA-087, ¶ 4 , 131 N.M. 132 , 33 P.3d 683 . 2002See Sanchez v. Clayton, 117 N.M. 761, 766 , 877 P.2d 567, 572 (1994); Madrid v. Marquez, 2001-NMCA-087, ¶ 4 , 131 N.M. 132 , 33 P.3d 683 . | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estate of Fostergreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., In re Estate of Foster, 102 N.M. at 713-14 , 699 P.2d at 644-45 (discussing cases applying the equitable doctrine exception to actions involving estates). {20} Moreover, awarding attorney fees in this context would be contrary to the policies advanced by the American rule. 2002See, e.g., In re Estate of Foster, 102 N.M. at 713-14 , 699 P.2d at 644-45 (discussing cases applying the equitable doctrine exception to actions involving estates). {20} Moreover, awarding attorney fees in this context would be contrary to the policies advanced by the American rule. | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. Claytongreen2 sentences2002See Sanchez v. Clayton, 117 N.M. 761, 766 , 877 P.2d 567, 572 (1994); Madrid v. Marquez, 2001-NMCA-087, ¶ 4 , 131 N.M. 132 , 33 P.3d 683 . 2002See Sanchez v. Clayton, 117 N.M. 761, 766 , 877 P.2d 567, 572 (1994); Madrid v. Marquez, 2001-NMCA-087, ¶ 4 , 131 N.M. 132 , 33 P.3d 683 . | 1 | 1 |
| Doe v. Heintzgreen | 1 | 1 |
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.green2 sentences1999Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235 , 85 S.Ct. 411 , 13 L.Ed.2d 248 (1964)); see also Fleischmann Distilling Corp., 386 U.S. at 717 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 (noting that American “courts have generally resisted any movement in [the] direction” of the English system). {13} In addition, the American rule “tends to preserve judicial resources.” Superintendent of Ins. v. Mountain States Mut. 1999Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235 , 85 S.Ct. 411 , 13 L.Ed.2d 248 (1964)); see also Fleischmann Distilling Corp., 386 U.S. at 717 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 (noting that American “courts have generally resisted any movement in [the] direction” of the English system). {13} In addition, the American rule “tends to preserve judicial resources.” Superintendent of Ins. v. Mountain States Mut. | 1 | 1 |
| City of Seattle v. McCreadygreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Seattle v. McCreadygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Serrano v. Priestgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. EchoHawkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anibal Conte, Libelant-Appellee-Appellant v. Flota Mercante Del Estado, Respondent-Appellant-Appelleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gustave Gerstle, (Cross-Appellants) v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., (Cross-Appellee)green | 1 | 1 |
| Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Thevenetgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Societyred | 1 | 1 |
| Norton v. BOARD OF ED. OF SCH. DIST. NO. 16, ETC.green | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Martinezgreen2 sentences1999See Montoya v. Villa Linda Mall, Ltd., 110 N.M. 128, 129 , 793 P.2d 258, 259 (1990) (“New Mexico adheres to the so-called American rule that, absent statutory or other authority, litigants are responsible for their own attorney’s fees.”); Martinez v. Martinez, 101 N.M. 88, 93 , 678 P.2d 1163, 1168 (1984) (stating that the rule for the award of attorney fees is “that each party to litigation must pay his [or her] own counsel fees”); Norton v. Board of Educ., 89 N.M. 470, 472 , 553 P.2d 1277, 1279 (1976) (denying attorneys fees in a claim challenging constitutionality of fee collection for publi 1999See Montoya v. Villa Linda Mall, Ltd., 110 N.M. 128, 129 , 793 P.2d 258, 259 (1990) (“New Mexico adheres to the so-called American rule that, absent statutory or other authority, litigants are responsible for their own attorney’s fees.”); Martinez v. Martinez, 101 N.M. 88, 93 , 678 P.2d 1163, 1168 (1984) (stating that the rule for the award of attorney fees is “that each party to litigation must pay his [or her] own counsel fees”); Norton v. Board of Educ., 89 N.M. 470, 472 , 553 P.2d 1277, 1279 (1976) (denying attorneys fees in a claim challenging constitutionality of fee collection for publi | 1 | 1 |
Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokumgreen2 sentences1999First and foremost, “the American rule promotes equal access to the courts for the resolution of bona fide disputes.” Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum, 179 W.Va. 48 , 365 S.E.2d 246, 250 (1986). 1999First and foremost, “the American rule promotes equal access to the courts for the resolution of bona fide disputes.” Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum, 179 W.Va. 48 , 365 S.E.2d 246, 250 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Turpin v. Smedinghoffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Behrmann v. Phototron Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Laughlin v. Laughlingreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp.
green
2 sentences2019See Montoya, 1990-NMSC-053 , ¶ 6 (“Authority [to depart 19 from the American rule] can be provided by agreement of the parties to a 20 contract.”); United Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp, 1989- 21 NMSC-030, ¶ 14, 108 N.M. 467 , 775 P.2d 233 (“New Mexico also has a strong 6 1 public policy of freedom to contract[.]”). 2019See Montoya, 1990-NMSC-053 , ¶ 6 (“Authority [to depart 19 from the American rule] can be provided by agreement of the parties to a 20 contract.”); United Wholesale Liquor Co. v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp, 1989- 21 NMSC-030, ¶ 14, 108 N.M. 467 , 775 P.2d 233 (“New Mexico also has a strong 6 1 public policy of freedom to contract[.]”). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Clark v. Sims
green
2 sentences2015Accordingly, we limit our review of the costs issue to Defendant’s arguments under Rule 1-054. {59} Pursuant to Rule 1-054(D)(1), “costs . . . shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs}.]” Attorney fees awards are governed by the American rule, which provides that “absent statutory or other authority,. . . each party should bear its own attorney fees”; an exception to the American rule is the court’s power “to sanction the bad faith conduct of litigants and attorneys}.]” Clark v. Sims, 2009-NMCA-118, ¶ 21 , 147 N.M. 252 , 219 P.3d 20 (internal quotation marks 2015Accordingly, we limit our review of the costs issue to Defendant’s arguments under Rule 1-054. {59} Pursuant to Rule 1-054(D)(1), “costs . . . shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs}.]” Attorney fees awards are governed by the American rule, which provides that “absent statutory or other authority,. . . each party should bear its own attorney fees”; an exception to the American rule is the court’s power “to sanction the bad faith conduct of litigants and attorneys}.]” Clark v. Sims, 2009-NMCA-118, ¶ 21 , 147 N.M. 252 , 219 P.3d 20 (internal quotation marks | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Meiboom v. Watson
green
2 sentences2012A district court abuses its discretion when its ruling “exceeds the bounds of 16 all reason” or is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Meiboom v. Watson, 17 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 29 , 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (internal quotation marks and 18 citation omitted). 19 New Mexico follows the “American rule” regarding attorney fees, which holds 14 1 that, “absent statutory or other authority, litigants are responsible for their own 2 attorney[] fees.” N.M. 2012A district court abuses its discretion when its ruling “exceeds the bounds of 16 all reason” or is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Meiboom v. Watson, 17 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 29 , 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (internal quotation marks and 18 citation omitted). 19 New Mexico follows the “American rule” regarding attorney fees, which holds 14 1 that, “absent statutory or other authority, litigants are responsible for their own 2 attorney[] fees.” N.M. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re New Mexico Indirect Purchasers Microsoft Corp.
green
2 sentences2008Indirect Purchasers Microsoft Corp., 2007-NMCA-007, ¶ 18 , 140 N.M. 879 , 149 P.3d 976 (stating that under the common fund doctrine “a litigant or a lawyer who recovers, preserves, or increases the value of a common fund, thereby benefitting other persons, may be reimbursed for reasonable fees and expenses from the fund as a whole,” before it is distributed to the prevailing parties, and an attorney is entitled to be compensated in proportion to the benefit obtained for each person who shares in the recovery). {38} We view the district court’s enforcement of the charging lien against Schehl’s 2008Indirect Purchasers Microsoft Corp., 2007-NMCA-007, ¶ 18 , 140 N.M. 879 , 149 P.3d 976 (stating that under the common fund doctrine “a litigant or a lawyer who recovers, preserves, or increases the value of a common fund, thereby benefitting other persons, may be reimbursed for reasonable fees and expenses from the fund as a whole,” before it is distributed to the prevailing parties, and an attorney is entitled to be compensated in proportion to the benefit obtained for each person who shares in the recovery). {38} We view the district court’s enforcement of the charging lien against Schehl’s | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Garcia v. Jeantette
green
2 sentences2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im 2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gonzales v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im 2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Martinez v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im 2007See ACLU v. City of Albuquerque, 1999-NMSC-044, ¶28 , 128 N.M. 315 , 992 P.2d 866 (holding that the bad faith exception to the American rule was inapplicable when the allegations regarding the City’s bad faith in enacting the ordinance did not concern conduct before the court or in defiance of the court’s authority); Baca, 120 N.M. at 5-7 , 896 P.2d at 1152-54 ; Garcia, 2004-NMCA-004, ¶23 , 134 N.M. 776 , 82 P.3d 947 (noting that “ ‘the district court’s authority to impose sanctions does not extend to pre-litigation conduct, [but] under its inherent power, the court may in appropriate cases im | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 479, 481 , 100 S.Ct. 745 . {19} In this case, Microsoft has contractually agreed to pay attorney fees. 2006Id. at 479, 481 , 100 S.Ct. 745 . {19} In this case, Microsoft has contractually agreed to pay attorney fees. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Madrid v. Marquez
green
2 sentences2002See Sanchez v. Clayton, 117 N.M. 761, 766 , 877 P.2d 567, 572 (1994); Madrid v. Marquez, 2001-NMCA-087, ¶ 4 , 131 N.M. 132 , 33 P.3d 683 . 2002See Sanchez v. Clayton, 117 N.M. 761, 766 , 877 P.2d 567, 572 (1994); Madrid v. Marquez, 2001-NMCA-087, ¶ 4 , 131 N.M. 132 , 33 P.3d 683 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Doe v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque
green
2 sentences1999Further, the development of state constitutional jurisprudence in New Mexico does not provide a basis for concluding that the American rule is “so unworkable as to be intolerable.” Trujillo, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶ 34 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 . 1999Further, the development of state constitutional jurisprudence in New Mexico does not provide a basis for concluding that the American rule is “so unworkable as to be intolerable.” Trujillo, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶ 34 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Matter of Dearborn Drainage Area green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Margarito Martinez, Patricia Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service
green
2 sentences1999A court may use such sanctions “to regulate [the court’s] docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings.” Martinez, 744 F.2d at 73 . {19} We also have recognized certain exceptions to the American rule that might be characterized as arising from a court’s equitable powers. 1999A court may use such sanctions “to regulate [the court’s] docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings.” Martinez, 744 F.2d at 73 . {19} We also have recognized certain exceptions to the American rule that might be characterized as arising from a court’s equitable powers. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services
green
2 sentences1999Rather, they argue that “[t]his Court has previously articulated ... exceptions to the American Rule based on the Court’s inherent, equitable powers” and that “[t]his Court has the inherent power to recognize an additional exception to the American Rule and should do so in this case.” They assert that “[t]his case presents the Court with the opportunity to recognize another exception to the American Rule” — to wit, “[t]he private attorney general doctrine [which establishes] that private plaintiffs attorneys are entitled to fees in cases where, as a result of their efforts, rights of societal 1999Rather, they argue that “[t]his Court has previously articulated ... exceptions to the American Rule based on the Court’s inherent, equitable powers” and that “[t]his Court has the inherent power to recognize an additional exception to the American Rule and should do so in this case.” They assert that “[t]his case presents the Court with the opportunity to recognize another exception to the American Rule” — to wit, “[t]he private attorney general doctrine [which establishes] that private plaintiffs attorneys are entitled to fees in cases where, as a result of their efforts, rights of societal | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Stromberg v. California green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Bridges v. California green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State Ex Rel. Anaya v. Scarborough green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Slee v. Simpson green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Kolka v. Jones green | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Hutchins v. Berry green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Mercer v. Frank Hitch Lumber Co. green | 1 | 1936–1936 |
| Clark v. Ellsworth green | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.