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 1968–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vermont v. Brillongreen1 sentence2017Cf. Brillon, 556 U.S. at 94 (“The effect of these earlier events should have been factored into the court’s analysis of subsequent delay.”). | 1 | 1 |
Jonathan Edward Boyer v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2017See id. at 1703 (concluding that most of the delay resulted from defense requests for continuances, other defense motions, and events beyond the control of either party). 8 {30} In the instant case, the furlough was initiated by the Governor and resulted from events beyond the control of the defense and the prosecution. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2009Cf. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 82 N.M. 554, 555 , 484 P.2d 1264, 1265 (1971) (holding that where a defendant did not object to action at trial, he cannot complain about such action to the Supreme Court). 2009Cf. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 82 N.M. 554, 555 , 484 P.2d 1264, 1265 (1971) (holding that where a defendant did not object to action at trial, he cannot complain about such action to the Supreme Court). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Smithgreen2 sentences2009The Court also quoted the control test language from Campbell v. Smith, 68 N.M. 373, 377 , 362 P.2d 523, 525-26 (1961): “ ‘[t]he principal test to determine whether one is ... an employee is whether the employer has any control over the manner in which the details of the work are to be accomplished.’ ” Reule Sun Corp., 2008-NMCA-115, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 736 , 191 P.3d 1197 . 2009The Court also quoted the control test language from Campbell v. Smith, 68 N.M. 373, 377 , 362 P.2d 523, 525-26 (1961): “ ‘[t]he principal test to determine whether one is ... an employee is whether the employer has any control over the manner in which the details of the work are to be accomplished.’ ” Reule Sun Corp., 2008-NMCA-115, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 736 , 191 P.3d 1197 . | 1 | 1 |
Dibble v. Garciagreen2 sentences1991See Dibble v. Garcia, 98 N.M. 21 , 644 P.2d 535 (Ct.App.1982). 1991See Dibble v. Garcia, 98 N.M. 21 , 644 P.2d 535 (Ct.App.1982). | 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. Ochoa
green
2 sentences2023While the delay was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and “resulted from events beyond the control of the defense and the prosecution,” see Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 30 , the March 2020 Order and subsequent orders gave the district court the discretion to “go forward with a jury trial, upon motion of a party, to avoid serious harm to the interests of the litigants or for other exceptional circumstances,” e.g., April 2020 Order at 2; March 2020 Order at 3. 2023While 5 the delay was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and “resulted from events beyond 6 the control of the defense and the prosecution,” see Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, ¶ 30 , 7 the March 2020 Order and subsequent orders gave the district court the discretion to 8 “go forward with a jury trial, upon motion of a party, to avoid serious harm to the 9 interests of the litigants or for other exceptional circumstances,” e.g., April 2020 10 Order at 2; March 2020 Order at 3. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Latta v. Harvey
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 76 , 352 P.2d at 651 . {25} The following year, in Campbell, this Court also analyzed the relationship between a subcontractor and his employer by using the control test to determine whether the subcontractor was subject to the licensing requirement of NMSA 1953, Section 67-16-3. 68 N.M. at 377-78 , 362 P.2d at 525-26 . 2009Id. at 76 , 352 P.2d at 651 . {25} The following year, in Campbell, this Court also analyzed the relationship between a subcontractor and his employer by using the control test to determine whether the subcontractor was subject to the licensing requirement of NMSA 1953, Section 67-16-3. 68 N.M. at 377-78 , 362 P.2d at 525-26 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles
green
2 sentences2009The Court also quoted the control test language from Campbell v. Smith, 68 N.M. 373, 377 , 362 P.2d 523, 525-26 (1961): “ ‘[t]he principal test to determine whether one is ... an employee is whether the employer has any control over the manner in which the details of the work are to be accomplished.’ ” Reule Sun Corp., 2008-NMCA-115, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 736 , 191 P.3d 1197 . 2009The Court also quoted the control test language from Campbell v. Smith, 68 N.M. 373, 377 , 362 P.2d 523, 525-26 (1961): “ ‘[t]he principal test to determine whether one is ... an employee is whether the employer has any control over the manner in which the details of the work are to be accomplished.’ ” Reule Sun Corp., 2008-NMCA-115, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 736 , 191 P.3d 1197 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Charles C. Harbin and Patricia A. Harbin v. Assurance Company of America, a Corporation
green
1 sentence1968It relies on Harbin v. Assurance Company of America, supra; Farm Bureau Mut. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.