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 1996–2020 0 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. Suazogreen1 sentence1996See generally State v. Suazo, 117 N.M. 785, 793 , 877 P.2d 1088, 1096 (1994) (adopting rule for retracting refusal to take blood-alcohol test); Fugere v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 120 N.M. 29, 34 , 897 P.2d 216, 221 (Ct.App.) (determining whether driver’s actions constituted a refusal to take a breath test is a factual question), cert. denied, 119 N.M. 771 , 895 P.2d 671 (1995). 9. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Suazogreen1 sentence1996See generally State v. Suazo, 117 N.M. 785, 793 , 877 P.2d 1088, 1096 (1994) (adopting rule for retracting refusal to take blood-alcohol test); Fugere v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 120 N.M. 29, 34 , 897 P.2d 216, 221 (Ct.App.) (determining whether driver’s actions constituted a refusal to take a breath test is a factual question), cert. denied, 119 N.M. 771 , 895 P.2d 671 (1995). 9. | 1 | 1 |
Fugere v. STATE, TAX. & REV. DEPT., MVDgreen2 sentences1996See generally State v. Suazo, 117 N.M. 785, 793 , 877 P.2d 1088, 1096 (1994) (adopting rule for retracting refusal to take blood-alcohol test); Fugere v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 120 N.M. 29, 34 , 897 P.2d 216, 221 (Ct.App.) (determining whether driver’s actions constituted a refusal to take a breath test is a factual question), cert. denied, 119 N.M. 771 , 895 P.2d 671 (1995). 9. 1996See generally State v. Suazo, 117 N.M. 785, 793 , 877 P.2d 1088, 1096 (1994) (adopting rule for retracting refusal to take blood-alcohol test); Fugere v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 120 N.M. 29, 34 , 897 P.2d 216, 221 (Ct.App.) (determining whether driver’s actions constituted a refusal to take a breath test is a factual question), cert. denied, 119 N.M. 771 , 895 P.2d 671 (1995). 9. | 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. Watchman
green
2 sentences2017Section 66-8-107(A); State v. Watchman , 1991-NMCA-010 , ¶ 31, 111 N.M. 727 , 809 P.2d 641 , overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hosteen , 1996-NMCA-084 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 228 , 923 P.2d 595 . 2017Section 66-8-107(A); State v. Watchman , 1991-NMCA-010 , ¶ 31, 111 N.M. 727 , 809 P.2d 641 , overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hosteen , 1996-NMCA-084 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 228 , 923 P.2d 595 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hosteen
green
2 sentences2017Section 66-8-107(A); State v. Watchman , 1991-NMCA-010 , ¶ 31, 111 N.M. 727 , 809 P.2d 641 , overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hosteen , 1996-NMCA-084 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 228 , 923 P.2d 595 . 2017Section 66-8-107(A); State v. Watchman , 1991-NMCA-010 , ¶ 31, 111 N.M. 727 , 809 P.2d 641 , overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hosteen , 1996-NMCA-084 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 228 , 923 P.2d 595 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Vargas
green
1 sentence2020BACKGROUND {2} Defendant does not dispute the district court’s recitation of the facts and testimony at trial. [MIO 1-2] However, Defendant argues that the district court erred in concluding that any error in the arresting officer’s use of the word “nystagmus” during his testimony describing Defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests (FSTs) was harmless. [MIO 2-3] Defendant contends that the word “nystagmus” must have sounded “impressively latinate and scientific[,]” and therefore, was particularly persuasive to the jury. [MIO 3] Defendant further argues that, because there was no evi | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Barber
green
1 sentence2019Specifically, Defendant contends that, “[h]ad the jury been given the legal definition of refusal, it would have been required to decide . . . whether the arrest itself was reasonable; whether [Defendant] was conscious [or] otherwise capable of taking a test; and whether he willfully refused to submit to a breath or blood test.” In this instance, the refusal instruction, including the elements Defendant points to, “merely amplify[ies] an element” in the aggravated DWI instruction rather than “provide[s] a determination critical to understanding the elements instruction.” Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, | 1 | 2019–2019 |
McKay v. Davis
green
2 sentences2009This right, however, is a only a right “not to be forcibly tested after manifesting refusal.” McKay, 99 N.M. at 30 , 653 P.2d at 861 . {38} Defendant does not argue that he was forcibly tested. 2009This right, however, is a only a right “not to be forcibly tested after manifesting refusal.” McKay, 99 N.M. at 30 , 653 P.2d at 861 . {38} Defendant does not argue that he was forcibly tested. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.