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 2007–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atherton v. Gopingreen1 sentence2023See Atherton v. Gopin, 2015-NMCA-003, ¶ 24 , 340 P.3d 630 (holding that before granting summary judgment, “the district court must assess despite the lack of a response whether, on the merits, the moving party satisfied the burden under Rule 1- 056(C) [NMRA].” Id. (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Paragon Foundation, Inc. v. State of New Mexico Livestock Boardgreen2 sentences2015See 5 Paragon Found., Inc. v. State Livestock Bd., 2006-NMCA-004, ¶ 31 , 138 N.M. 761 , 6 126 P.3d 577 (stating that an appellate court reviews the denial of a motion for 7 continuance for abuse of discretion). 2015See 5 Paragon Found., Inc. v. State Livestock Bd., 2006-NMCA-004, ¶ 31 , 138 N.M. 761 , 6 126 P.3d 577 (stating that an appellate court reviews the denial of a motion for 7 continuance for abuse of discretion). | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. Wimberlygreen2 sentences2015See Reeves v. Wimberly, 16 1988-NMCA-038 , ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 231 , 755 P.2d 75 (“Upon a doubtful or deficient 17 record, every presumption is indulged in favor of the correctness and regularity of the 18 trial court’s decision, and the appellate court will indulge in reasonable presumptions 19 in support of the order entered.”). 4 1 {5} Appellant next maintains his argument that the district court erred in not 2 granting his motion for a continuance after Appellant informed it that he had not 3 received notice of the trial date until the day before the hearing. [MIO 4-7] We 4 review the district 2015See Reeves v. Wimberly, 16 1988-NMCA-038 , ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 231 , 755 P.2d 75 (“Upon a doubtful or deficient 17 record, every presumption is indulged in favor of the correctness and regularity of the 18 trial court’s decision, and the appellate court will indulge in reasonable presumptions 19 in support of the order entered.”). 4 1 {5} Appellant next maintains his argument that the district court erred in not 2 granting his motion for a continuance after Appellant informed it that he had not 3 received notice of the trial date until the day before the hearing. [MIO 4-7] We 4 review the district | 1 | 1 |
Donohoe v. Mid-Valley Glass Co.green1 sentence2011She now informs us that 3 a bench warrant for her arrest had been issued on March 8. [MIO 2] 4 Appellant argues that the district court should have viewed, and this Court 5 should now view, the March 14 faxed letter as her first request for a continuance, not 6 her second, as the first continuance would have occurred anyway because of the 7 judge’s recusal. [MIO 2] As we stated in our notice of proposed summary 8 disposition, “[g]ranting of a continuance . . . rests within the sound discretion of the 9 trial court, and the denial of a continuance will be reversed only upon a showing of 10 a cl | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rhein v. ADT Automotive, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Citing State v. Grogan, the judge emphasized her judicial “duty to maintain the integrity of the court” and set a hearing on the motion for a new trial. 2007-NMSC-039, ¶ 10 , 142 N.M. 107 , 163 P.3d 494 . {13} The day before the hearing on the motion, Defendant moved for a mistrial and to bar reprosecution under Breit, 1996-NMSC-067 . 2024Defense counsel never objected. 8 Citing State v. Grogan, the judge emphasized her judicial “duty to maintain the 9 integrity of the court” and set a hearing on the motion for a new trial. 2007-NMSC- 10 039, ¶ 10, 142 N.M. 107 , 163 P.3d 494 . 11 {13} The day before the hearing on the motion, Defendant moved for a mistrial and 12 to bar reprosecution under Breit, 1996-NMSC-067 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Grogan
green
2 sentences2024Defense counsel never objected. 8 Citing State v. Grogan, the judge emphasized her judicial “duty to maintain the 9 integrity of the court” and set a hearing on the motion for a new trial. 2007-NMSC- 10 039, ¶ 10, 142 N.M. 107 , 163 P.3d 494 . 11 {13} The day before the hearing on the motion, Defendant moved for a mistrial and 12 to bar reprosecution under Breit, 1996-NMSC-067 . 2024Defense counsel never objected. 8 Citing State v. Grogan, the judge emphasized her judicial “duty to maintain the 9 integrity of the court” and set a hearing on the motion for a new trial. 2007-NMSC- 10 039, ¶ 10, 142 N.M. 107 , 163 P.3d 494 . 11 {13} The day before the hearing on the motion, Defendant moved for a mistrial and 12 to bar reprosecution under Breit, 1996-NMSC-067 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Bombach v. Battershell
green
1 sentence2011She now informs us that 3 a bench warrant for her arrest had been issued on March 8. [MIO 2] 4 Appellant argues that the district court should have viewed, and this Court 5 should now view, the March 14 faxed letter as her first request for a continuance, not 6 her second, as the first continuance would have occurred anyway because of the 7 judge’s recusal. [MIO 2] As we stated in our notice of proposed summary 8 disposition, “[g]ranting of a continuance . . . rests within the sound discretion of the 9 trial court, and the denial of a continuance will be reversed only upon a showing of 10 a cl | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Montoya v. Zia Co.
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.