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 1992–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gila Resources Information Project v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commissiongreen2 sentences2014Project, 2005-NMCA-139, ¶ 16 (stating the arbitrary and capricious standard); Oil Transp. 2014Project, 2005-NMCA-139, ¶ 16 (stating the arbitrary and capricious standard); Oil Transp. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sandovalgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Sandoval, 88 N.M. 267, 270 , 539 P.2d 1029, 1032 (Ct.App.1975) (indicating that points of error identified in the statement of proceedings but neither briefed nor supported by authority are considered abandoned). 2007See State v. Sandoval, 88 N.M. 267, 270 , 539 P.2d 1029, 1032 (Ct.App.1975) (indicating that points of error identified in the statement of proceedings but neither briefed nor supported by authority are considered abandoned). | 2 | 2 |
Sais v. NM Dep't. of Corrs.green1 sentence2025Comm’n, 1993-NMSC-032 , ¶ 6, 115 N.M. 678 , 858 P.2d 54 (providing that under the arbitrary and capricious standard, “[t]he burden is on [the party challenging the administrative decision] to show that the order of the [administrative body] is unreasonable or unlawful”); Sais, 2012-NMSC-009, ¶ 16 (providing that the board’s “ruling is arbitrary and capricious if it is unreasonable or without a rational basis, when viewed in light of the whole record”). {15} Padilla’s remaining arguments, including that substantial evidence did not support his termination and that NMCD’s choice of discipline wa | 1 | 1 |
New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberggreen2 sentences1992After defining a trial by jury to include a “full and fair hearing upon all relevant issues where all questions of fact presented by the testimony are decided by the jury in accordance with the principles of law,” Keller, 85 N.M. at 137 , 509 P.2d at 1332 (quoting New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg, 315 Mass. 739 , 54 N.E.2d 915, 919 (1944)), the Court concluded that “the district court has the right to make an independent determination of the facts from the record in the case and such additional relevant evidence as may be presented, and that the general rule * * * [that agency decisions are 1992After defining a trial by jury to include a “full and fair hearing upon all relevant issues where all questions of fact presented by the testimony are decided by the jury in accordance with the principles of law,” Keller, 85 N.M. at 137 , 509 P.2d at 1332 (quoting New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg, 315 Mass. 739 , 54 N.E.2d 915, 919 (1944)), the Court concluded that “the district court has the right to make an independent determination of the facts from the record in the case and such additional relevant evidence as may be presented, and that the general rule * * * [that agency decisions are | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. City of Albuquerquered2 sentences1992After defining a trial by jury to include a “full and fair hearing upon all relevant issues where all questions of fact presented by the testimony are decided by the jury in accordance with the principles of law,” Keller, 85 N.M. at 137 , 509 P.2d at 1332 (quoting New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg, 315 Mass. 739 , 54 N.E.2d 915, 919 (1944)), the Court concluded that “the district court has the right to make an independent determination of the facts from the record in the case and such additional relevant evidence as may be presented, and that the general rule * * * [that agency decisions are 1992After defining a trial by jury to include a “full and fair hearing upon all relevant issues where all questions of fact presented by the testimony are decided by the jury in accordance with the principles of law,” Keller, 85 N.M. at 137 , 509 P.2d at 1332 (quoting New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg, 315 Mass. 739 , 54 N.E.2d 915, 919 (1944)), the Court concluded that “the district court has the right to make an independent determination of the facts from the record in the case and such additional relevant evidence as may be presented, and that the general rule * * * [that agency decisions are | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hobbs Gas Co. v. New Mexico Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences2025Comm’n, 1993-NMSC-032 , ¶ 6, 115 N.M. 678 , 858 P.2d 54 (providing that under the arbitrary and capricious standard, “[t]he burden is on [the party challenging the administrative decision] to show that the order of the [administrative body] is unreasonable or unlawful”); Sais, 2012-NMSC-009, ¶ 16 (providing that the board’s “ruling is arbitrary and capricious if it is unreasonable or without a rational basis, when viewed in light of the whole record”). {15} Padilla’s remaining arguments, including that substantial evidence did not support his termination and that NMCD’s choice of discipline wa 2025Comm’n, 1993-NMSC-032 , ¶ 6, 115 N.M. 678 , 858 P.2d 54 (providing that under the arbitrary and capricious standard, “[t]he burden is on [the party challenging the administrative decision] to show that the order of the [administrative body] is unreasonable or unlawful”); Sais, 2012-NMSC-009, ¶ 16 (providing that the board’s “ruling is arbitrary and capricious if it is unreasonable or without a rational basis, when viewed in light of the whole record”). {15} Padilla’s remaining arguments, including that substantial evidence did not support his termination and that NMCD’s choice of discipline wa | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.