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.
6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2022 1 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. Simpsongreen2 sentences2022See State v. Simpson, 1993-NMSC-073 , ¶ 14, 116 N.M. 768 , 867 P.2d 1150 (stating that the general principle of proximate causation in criminal law requires the state to prove that a proscribed result is “the natural and probable consequence of” the defendant’s conduct and that “[t]he conduct of other parties is relevant only if it is a superseding cause that negates the defendant’s conduct” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2022See State v. Simpson, 1993-NMSC-073 , ¶ 14, 116 N.M. 768 , 867 P.2d 1150 (stating that the general principle of proximate causation in criminal law requires the state to prove that a proscribed result is “the natural and probable consequence of” the defendant’s conduct and that “[t]he conduct of other parties is relevant only if it is a superseding cause that negates the defendant’s conduct” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ratchfordgreen2 sentences2005There are limited exceptions to this general rule, such as for oral declarations of mistrial, State v. Reyes-Arreola, 1999-NMCA-086 , ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 528 , 984 P.2d 775 , and the oral granting of a new trial, State v. Ratchford, 115 N.M. 567, 570-71 , 855 P.2d 556, 559-60 (1993). {16} Defendant raises two distinctions that he claims preclude the application of the general rule that oral rulings are not binding and that justify application of double jeopardy protection in this case: (1) the trial court issued a written ruling instead of just an oral ruling, and (2) oral acquittals are recognized 2005There are limited exceptions to this general rule, such as for oral declarations of mistrial, State v. Reyes-Arreola, 1999-NMCA-086 , ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 528 , 984 P.2d 775 , and the oral granting of a new trial, State v. Ratchford, 115 N.M. 567, 570-71 , 855 P.2d 556, 559-60 (1993). {16} Defendant raises two distinctions that he claims preclude the application of the general rule that oral rulings are not binding and that justify application of double jeopardy protection in this case: (1) the trial court issued a written ruling instead of just an oral ruling, and (2) oral acquittals are recognized | 1 | 1 |
Abbott v. Doanegreen2 sentences1937See Abbott v. Doane, 163 Mass. 433 -435, 40 N.E. 197 , 34 L.R.A. 33 , 47 Am.St.Rep. 465 [citing other authorities]. 1937See Abbott v. Doane, 163 Mass. 433 -435, 40 N.E. 197 , 34 L.R.A. 33 , 47 Am.St.Rep. 465 [citing other authorities]. | 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. Reyes-Arreola
green
2 sentences2005There are limited exceptions to this general rule, such as for oral declarations of mistrial, State v. Reyes-Arreola, 1999-NMCA-086 , ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 528 , 984 P.2d 775 , and the oral granting of a new trial, State v. Ratchford, 115 N.M. 567, 570-71 , 855 P.2d 556, 559-60 (1993). {16} Defendant raises two distinctions that he claims preclude the application of the general rule that oral rulings are not binding and that justify application of double jeopardy protection in this case: (1) the trial court issued a written ruling instead of just an oral ruling, and (2) oral acquittals are recognized 2005There are limited exceptions to this general rule, such as for oral declarations of mistrial, State v. Reyes-Arreola, 1999-NMCA-086 , ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 528 , 984 P.2d 775 , and the oral granting of a new trial, State v. Ratchford, 115 N.M. 567, 570-71 , 855 P.2d 556, 559-60 (1993). {16} Defendant raises two distinctions that he claims preclude the application of the general rule that oral rulings are not binding and that justify application of double jeopardy protection in this case: (1) the trial court issued a written ruling instead of just an oral ruling, and (2) oral acquittals are recognized | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Bradley
green
1 sentence1994In Bradley, the police were investigating the scene where a woman had been badly beaten in her home by a man who had broken into the home. 205 Cal.Rptr. at 486 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Knapp v. Greene
green
2 sentences1959Counsel for the defendants place great reliance on an application of the general doctrine and such cases as Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 , 24 Am.Rep. 605 ; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro, 141 Miss. 38 , 106 So. 209 , 44 A.L.R. 393 ; Knapp v. Greene, 79 Hun 264 , 29 N.Y.S. 350 , and Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co., 58 Cal.App. 2d 673 , 137 P.2d 463 . 1959Counsel for the defendants place great reliance on an application of the general doctrine and such cases as Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 , 24 Am.Rep. 605 ; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro, 141 Miss. 38 , 106 So. 209 , 44 A.L.R. 393 ; Knapp v. Greene, 79 Hun 264 , 29 N.Y.S. 350 , and Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co., 58 Cal.App. 2d 673 , 137 P.2d 463 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro
green
2 sentences1959Counsel for the defendants place great reliance on an application of the general doctrine and such cases as Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 , 24 Am.Rep. 605 ; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro, 141 Miss. 38 , 106 So. 209 , 44 A.L.R. 393 ; Knapp v. Greene, 79 Hun 264 , 29 N.Y.S. 350 , and Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co., 58 Cal.App. 2d 673 , 137 P.2d 463 . 1959Counsel for the defendants place great reliance on an application of the general doctrine and such cases as Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 , 24 Am.Rep. 605 ; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro, 141 Miss. 38 , 106 So. 209 , 44 A.L.R. 393 ; Knapp v. Greene, 79 Hun 264 , 29 N.Y.S. 350 , and Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co., 58 Cal.App. 2d 673 , 137 P.2d 463 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Palmer v. Palmer
green
1 sentence1959Counsel for the defendants place great reliance on an application of the general doctrine and such cases as Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 , 24 Am.Rep. 605 ; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro, 141 Miss. 38 , 106 So. 209 , 44 A.L.R. 393 ; Knapp v. Greene, 79 Hun 264 , 29 N.Y.S. 350 , and Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co., 58 Cal.App. 2d 673 , 137 P.2d 463 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co.
green
2 sentences1959Counsel for the defendants place great reliance on an application of the general doctrine and such cases as Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 , 24 Am.Rep. 605 ; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro, 141 Miss. 38 , 106 So. 209 , 44 A.L.R. 393 ; Knapp v. Greene, 79 Hun 264 , 29 N.Y.S. 350 , and Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co., 58 Cal.App. 2d 673 , 137 P.2d 463 . 1959Counsel for the defendants place great reliance on an application of the general doctrine and such cases as Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487 , 24 Am.Rep. 605 ; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Spiro, 141 Miss. 38 , 106 So. 209 , 44 A.L.R. 393 ; Knapp v. Greene, 79 Hun 264 , 29 N.Y.S. 350 , and Carrasco v. Greco Canning Co., 58 Cal.App. 2d 673 , 137 P.2d 463 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Garst v. Love & Word
neutral
1 sentence1912On the contrary, it is reasonably inferable from the language of the section and the situation with^which it deals, that it is intended that violations of it shall be attended by the ordinary consequences of unlawful acts.” In the case of Garst v. Love, supra, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that a paragraph of answer interposed as a defense to a suit to recover for the pasturage of cattle within an enclosure on government land, which stated that the enclosure was maintained upon government land, to which the plaintiff had no right or title, and of which they were holding exclusive possessi | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.