collateral estoppel has the burden doctrine (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

collateral estoppel has the burden doctrine in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2023 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
DeLisle v. Avallonegreen
nmctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998See DeLisle v. Avallone, 117 N.M. 602, 606 , 874 P.2d 1266, 1270 (Ct.App. 1994); cf. Shovelin v. Central N.M.

1998See DeLisle v. Avallone, 117 N.M. 602, 606 , 874 P.2d 1266, 1270 (Ct.App. 1994); cf. Shovelin v. Central N.M.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Shovelin v. CENTRAL NM ELEC. CO-OP. green
nm · 1993
2 sentences

2013Coop., 1993-NMSC-015 , ¶ 10, 115 N.M. 293 , 850 P.2d 996 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Ajdministrative adjudicative determinations may be given preclusive effect if rendered under conditions in which the parties have the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue at the administrative hearing.” Id. ¶ 12. {15} “The party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence for the district court to rule on whether the doctrine is applicable.” Padilla v. Intel Corp., 1998-NMCA-125, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 698 , 964 P.2d 862 . “[T]he m

2013Coop., 1993-NMSC-015 , ¶ 10, 115 N.M. 293 , 850 P.2d 996 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Ajdministrative adjudicative determinations may be given preclusive effect if rendered under conditions in which the parties have the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue at the administrative hearing.” Id. ¶ 12. {15} “The party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence for the district court to rule on whether the doctrine is applicable.” Padilla v. Intel Corp., 1998-NMCA-125, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 698 , 964 P.2d 862 . “[T]he m

32013–2013
Padilla v. Intel Corp. green
nmctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2013Coop., 1993-NMSC-015 , ¶ 10, 115 N.M. 293 , 850 P.2d 996 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Ajdministrative adjudicative determinations may be given preclusive effect if rendered under conditions in which the parties have the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue at the administrative hearing.” Id. ¶ 12. {15} “The party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence for the district court to rule on whether the doctrine is applicable.” Padilla v. Intel Corp., 1998-NMCA-125, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 698 , 964 P.2d 862 . “[T]he m

2013Coop., 1993-NMSC-015 , ¶ 10, 115 N.M. 293 , 850 P.2d 996 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Ajdministrative adjudicative determinations may be given preclusive effect if rendered under conditions in which the parties have the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue at the administrative hearing.” Id. ¶ 12. {15} “The party invoking the doctrine of collateral estoppel has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence for the district court to rule on whether the doctrine is applicable.” Padilla v. Intel Corp., 1998-NMCA-125, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 698 , 964 P.2d 862 . “[T]he m

32013–2013
Silva v. State green
nm · 1987
2 sentences

2023Silva v. State, 1987-NMSC-107 , ¶ 12, 106 N.M. 472 , 17 745 P.2d 380 .

2023Silva v. State, 1987-NMSC-107 , ¶ 12, 106 N.M. 472 , 17 745 P.2d 380 .

22023–2023

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 28-1-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 28-1-10 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 28-1-13 (3) USC § 28u.s.c.1738 (3) USC § 42u.s.c.12101 (3) USC § 42u.s.c.1983 (3) USC § 42u.s.c.2000a-h (3) USC § 42u.s.c.2000e-5(f) (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 7 (1998–2015) NM 6 (1998–2023) CA 2 (1963–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check