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 1975–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gathman-Matotan Architects & Planners, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Gathman-Matotan Architects & Planners v. State, 109 N.M. 492 , 787 P.2d 411 (1990). 1996See Gathman-Matotan Architects & Planners v. State, 109 N.M. 492 , 787 P.2d 411 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bacagreen2 sentences1975State v. Baca, 87 N.M. 12 , 528 P.2d 656, 657-58 (Ct.App.1974). *861 The Baca rule allows the police to act fast and without warning under exigent circumstances when to do otherwise might allow a guilty person to escape conviction. 1975State v. Baca, 87 N.M. 12 , 528 P.2d 656, 657-58 (Ct.App.1974). *861 The Baca rule allows the police to act fast and without warning under exigent circumstances when to do otherwise might allow a guilty person to escape conviction. | 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. Anaya
green
2 sentences2023Betancourt, 1987- 10 NMCA-039, ¶ 23. 11 {16} In a subsequent case, State v. Anaya, 2009-NMSC-043 , 147 N.M. 100 , 217 12 P.3d 586 , our Supreme Court addressed a seizure that occurred before the defendant 13 reached a sobriety roadblock. 2023Betancourt, 1987- 10 NMCA-039, ¶ 23. 11 {16} In a subsequent case, State v. Anaya, 2009-NMSC-043 , 147 N.M. 100 , 217 12 P.3d 586 , our Supreme Court addressed a seizure that occurred before the defendant 13 reached a sobriety roadblock. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2004A reviewing court does not “construe one provision of a statute in a manner that would make other provisions null or superfluous.” Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 18 , 134 N.M. 768 , 82 P.3d 939 ; cf. Leslie, 2004-NMCA-106, ¶¶ 9-10 , 136 N.M. 244 , 96 P.3d 805 (interpreting, in the context of conditional discharges, the relationship between NMSA 1978, § 31-20-13(A) (1994), and Section 31-20-5 and Section 31-20-6, “within the overall sentencing scheme”). {19} In rejecting this argument below, the district court hearing Baca’s motion for reconsideration observed that “Defendant and his counsel contend 2004A reviewing court does not “construe one provision of a statute in a manner that would make other provisions null or superfluous.” Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 18 , 134 N.M. 768 , 82 P.3d 939 ; cf. Leslie, 2004-NMCA-106, ¶¶ 9-10 , 136 N.M. 244 , 96 P.3d 805 (interpreting, in the context of conditional discharges, the relationship between NMSA 1978, § 31-20-13(A) (1994), and Section 31-20-5 and Section 31-20-6, “within the overall sentencing scheme”). {19} In rejecting this argument below, the district court hearing Baca’s motion for reconsideration observed that “Defendant and his counsel contend | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Leslie
green
2 sentences2004A reviewing court does not “construe one provision of a statute in a manner that would make other provisions null or superfluous.” Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 18 , 134 N.M. 768 , 82 P.3d 939 ; cf. Leslie, 2004-NMCA-106, ¶¶ 9-10 , 136 N.M. 244 , 96 P.3d 805 (interpreting, in the context of conditional discharges, the relationship between NMSA 1978, § 31-20-13(A) (1994), and Section 31-20-5 and Section 31-20-6, “within the overall sentencing scheme”). {19} In rejecting this argument below, the district court hearing Baca’s motion for reconsideration observed that “Defendant and his counsel contend 2004A reviewing court does not “construe one provision of a statute in a manner that would make other provisions null or superfluous.” Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 18 , 134 N.M. 768 , 82 P.3d 939 ; cf. Leslie, 2004-NMCA-106, ¶¶ 9-10 , 136 N.M. 244 , 96 P.3d 805 (interpreting, in the context of conditional discharges, the relationship between NMSA 1978, § 31-20-13(A) (1994), and Section 31-20-5 and Section 31-20-6, “within the overall sentencing scheme”). {19} In rejecting this argument below, the district court hearing Baca’s motion for reconsideration observed that “Defendant and his counsel contend | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1997We disagree with Baca’s analysis of the evidence and, therefore, need not reach Baca’s analysis of the law. {19} This Court must ensure that “a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential facts required for a conviction.” Garcia, 1992 NMSC 046, 114 N.M. at 274 , 837 P.2d at 867 . 1997We disagree with Baca’s analysis of the evidence and, therefore, need not reach Baca’s analysis of the law. {19} This Court must ensure that “a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential facts required for a conviction.” Garcia, 1992 NMSC 046, 114 N.M. at 274 , 837 P.2d at 867 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.