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 1 courts 1972–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Valdez v. R-WAY, LLCgreen1 sentence2023Compare Bank of N.Y. v. Romero, 2016-NMCA-091 , ¶ 15, 382 P.3d 18 991 (“The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars re[]litigation of the same 19 claim between the same parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted in a 20 final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), with 9 1 Valdez, 2010-NMCA-068, ¶ 7 (describing vicarious liability as the fault one party 2 has based on the “legal imputation of responsibility for another’s tortious acts” 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 4 {18} Third, Plaintiff argues that a relea | 1 | 1 |
Bank of New York v. Romerogreen1 sentence2023Compare Bank of N.Y. v. Romero, 2016-NMCA-091 , ¶ 15, 382 P.3d 18 991 (“The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars re[]litigation of the same 19 claim between the same parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted in a 20 final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), with 9 1 Valdez, 2010-NMCA-068, ¶ 7 (describing vicarious liability as the fault one party 2 has based on the “legal imputation of responsibility for another’s tortious acts” 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 4 {18} Third, Plaintiff argues that a relea | 1 | 1 |
State v. Correagreen2 sentences2021Cruces, 1993-NMCA-017 , ¶ 7, 115 N.M. 178 , 848 P.2d 1105 (explaining that “public order and public peace capture the same concept and a violation of either is a breach of the peace” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Correa, 2009-NMSC- 051, ¶ 22, 147 N.M. 291 , 222 P.3d 1 (defining “disturbing the peace” as “a disturbance of public order by an act of violence . . . or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {8} The State contends that Section 30-1-12(C), providing the defini 2021Cruces, 1993-NMCA-017 , ¶ 7, 115 N.M. 178 , 848 P.2d 1105 (explaining that “public order and public peace capture the same concept and a violation of either is a breach of the peace” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Correa, 2009-NMSC- 051, ¶ 22, 147 N.M. 291 , 222 P.3d 1 (defining “disturbing the peace” as “a disturbance of public order by an act of violence . . . or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {8} The State contends that Section 30-1-12(C), providing the defini | 1 | 1 |
Oldfield v. Benavidezgreen2 sentences2005See Oldfield v. Benavidez, 116 N.M. 785, 789 , 867 P.2d 1167, 1171 (1994) (recognizing that the concept of immunity demonstrates the conflicting concerns of government officials seeking freedom from personal liability and harassing litigation, and injured persons seeking redress for the torts committed by government). 2005See Oldfield v. Benavidez, 116 N.M. 785, 789 , 867 P.2d 1167, 1171 (1994) (recognizing that the concept of immunity demonstrates the conflicting concerns of government officials seeking freedom from personal liability and harassing litigation, and injured persons seeking redress for the torts committed by government). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Monarch Investment Plan of Henderson, Inc.green1 sentence1984See Nelson v. Monarch Investment Plan of Henderson, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky.App.1970); Commercial Credit Corporation v. Wollgast, 11 Wash.App. 117 , 521 P.2d 1191 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Ortiz & Torres Dri-Wall Companygreen2 sentences1972Compare Ortiz v. Ortiz & Torres Dri-Wall Company, 83 N.M. 452 , 493 P.2d 418 (Ct.App. 1972). 1972Compare Ortiz v. Ortiz & Torres Dri-Wall Company, 83 N.M. 452 , 493 P.2d 418 (Ct.App. 1972). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baptiste v. City of Las Cruces
green
2 sentences2021Cruces, 1993-NMCA-017 , ¶ 7, 115 N.M. 178 , 848 P.2d 1105 (explaining that “public order and public peace capture the same concept and a violation of either is a breach of the peace” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Correa, 2009-NMSC- 051, ¶ 22, 147 N.M. 291 , 222 P.3d 1 (defining “disturbing the peace” as “a disturbance of public order by an act of violence . . . or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {8} The State contends that Section 30-1-12(C), providing the defini 2021Cruces, 1993-NMCA-017 , ¶ 7, 115 N.M. 178 , 848 P.2d 1105 (explaining that “public order and public peace capture the same concept and a violation of either is a breach of the peace” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Correa, 2009-NMSC- 051, ¶ 22, 147 N.M. 291 , 222 P.3d 1 (defining “disturbing the peace” as “a disturbance of public order by an act of violence . . . or which, by causing consternation and alarm, disturbs the peace and quiet of the community” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {8} The State contends that Section 30-1-12(C), providing the defini | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Wollgast
green
2 sentences1984See Nelson v. Monarch Investment Plan of Henderson, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky.App.1970); Commercial Credit Corporation v. Wollgast, 11 Wash.App. 117 , 521 P.2d 1191 (1974). 1984See Nelson v. Monarch Investment Plan of Henderson, Inc., 452 S.W.2d 375 (Ky.App.1970); Commercial Credit Corporation v. Wollgast, 11 Wash.App. 117 , 521 P.2d 1191 (1974). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
David Neifeld v. Meyer Steinberg. David Neifeld v. Meyer Steinberg
green
1 sentence1974Neifeld v. Steinberg, 438 F.2d 423 (3d Cir. 1971) criticizes the concept of waiver of jurisdictional defenses where a counterclaim is asserted. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.