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 1978–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, INC. v. Shoobridgegreen2 sentences2015See NMSA 1978, § 31-12-3(A) (1993); New Energy 14 Economy, Inc. v. Shoobridge, 2010-NMSC-049, ¶ 18 , 149 N.M. 42 , 243 P.3d 746 15 (“The mere possibility or even probability that a person may be adversely affected in 16 the future by official acts fails to satisfy the actual controversy requirement.” 17 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 18 {3} Issue 2: Defendant’s supplemental docketing statement challenged the district 19 court’s ruling denying his motion to reduce sentence. [SDS 3] Defendant’s motion 2 1 argued that his post-arrest conduct weighed in favor of a r 2015See NMSA 1978, § 31-12-3(A) (1993); New Energy 14 Economy, Inc. v. Shoobridge, 2010-NMSC-049, ¶ 18 , 149 N.M. 42 , 243 P.3d 746 15 (“The mere possibility or even probability that a person may be adversely affected in 16 the future by official acts fails to satisfy the actual controversy requirement.” 17 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 18 {3} Issue 2: Defendant’s supplemental docketing statement challenged the district 19 court’s ruling denying his motion to reduce sentence. [SDS 3] Defendant’s motion 2 1 argued that his post-arrest conduct weighed in favor of a r | 2 | 2 |
Dawson v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2010In Yount, our Court of Appeals wrote that ‘“[t]he mere possibility or even probability that a person may be adversely affected in the future by official acts’ fails to satisfy the actual controversy requirement.” 117 N.M. at 103 , 869 P.2d at 291 (citing with approval a clarification of the “actual controversy” requirement set out in Dawson v. Department of Transportation, 480 F.Supp. 351, 352 (W.D.Okla.1979)). 1993Dawson v. Department of Transp., 480 F.Supp. 351, 352 (W.D.Okla.1979). | 2 | 2 |
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplangreen1 sentence2022The law requires “clear and unmistakable evidence,” Kaplan, 514 U.S. at 944 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), of an agreement to arbitrate a threshold issue, not magic language mentioning a specific gateway issue by name, and we conclude that this standard was met here. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bonillagreen2 sentences2015See State v. Bonilla, 2000-NMSC- 4 037, ¶ 6, 130 N.M. 1 , 15 P.3d 491 . 2015See State v. Bonilla, 2000-NMSC- 4 037, ¶ 6, 130 N.M. 1 , 15 P.3d 491 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yount v. Millington
green
2 sentences2010In Yount, our Court of Appeals wrote that ‘“[t]he mere possibility or even probability that a person may be adversely affected in the future by official acts’ fails to satisfy the actual controversy requirement.” 117 N.M. at 103 , 869 P.2d at 291 (citing with approval a clarification of the “actual controversy” requirement set out in Dawson v. Department of Transportation, 480 F.Supp. 351, 352 (W.D.Okla.1979)). 2010In Yount, our Court of Appeals wrote that ‘“[t]he mere possibility or even probability that a person may be adversely affected in the future by official acts’ fails to satisfy the actual controversy requirement.” 117 N.M. at 103 , 869 P.2d at 291 (citing with approval a clarification of the “actual controversy” requirement set out in Dawson v. Department of Transportation, 480 F.Supp. 351, 352 (W.D.Okla.1979)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Farr & Co. v. Cia. Intercontinental De Navegacion De Cuba, S. A.
green
1 sentence1978Intercontinental de Navegacion, 243 F.2d 342 , 348 (2 Cir. 1957) * * * There are authorities on the other hand which hold that the taking of a position inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate the controversy is a waiver of the arbitration rights contained in the agreement. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Bolo Corporation v. Homes & Son Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1978Ojus Industries, Inc. v. Mann, 221 So.2d 780 (Fla. App.1969); Bolo Corporation v. Homes & Son Construction Co., 105 Ariz. 343 , 464 P.2d 788 (1970). 1978Ojus Industries, Inc. v. Mann, 221 So.2d 780 (Fla. App.1969); Bolo Corporation v. Homes & Son Construction Co., 105 Ariz. 343 , 464 P.2d 788 (1970). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Ojus Industries, Inc. v. Mann
green
1 sentence1978Ojus Industries, Inc. v. Mann, 221 So.2d 780 (Fla. App.1969); Bolo Corporation v. Homes & Son Construction Co., 105 Ariz. 343 , 464 P.2d 788 (1970). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.