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 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrus v. Gas Co. of New Mexicogreen2 sentences2018Further, “[t]o preserve an [instructional] issue for 19 appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert the district court to the 3 1 particular vice in the defective instruction.” Id. (citation omitted). 2006“To preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction.” Andrus v. Gas Co., 110 N.M. 593, 597 , 798 P.2d 194, 198 (Ct.App.1990). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Astorgagreen1 sentence2025See State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶¶ 42-43 , 343 P.3d 1245 (“When an error is preserved, we review for harmless error. . . . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Astorgagreen1 sentence2025See State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶¶ 42-43 , 343 P.3d 1245 (“When an error is preserved, we review for harmless error. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Heath Ex Rel. Holdyn H. v. La Mariana Apartmentsgreen2 sentences2012Heath v. La 11 Mariana Apartments, 2007-NMCA-003, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 131 , 151 P.3d 903 (“To 12 preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert 13 the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction.” (internal quotation 14 marks and citation omitted)), aff’d on other grounds by 2008-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 1, 24 , 15 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664 ; City of Albuquerque v. Ackerman, 82 N.M. 360, 364 , 16 482 P.2d 63, 67 (1971) (same). 17 Alternatively, Defendants argue that this is an issue for fundamental error 18 review, on the grounds that there is “ 2012Heath v. La 11 Mariana Apartments, 2007-NMCA-003, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 131 , 151 P.3d 903 (“To 12 preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert 13 the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction.” (internal quotation 14 marks and citation omitted)), aff’d on other grounds by 2008-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 1, 24 , 15 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664 ; City of Albuquerque v. Ackerman, 82 N.M. 360, 364 , 16 482 P.2d 63, 67 (1971) (same). 17 Alternatively, Defendants argue that this is an issue for fundamental error 18 review, on the grounds that there is “ | 1 | 1 |
City of Albuquerque v. Ackermangreen2 sentences2012Heath v. La 11 Mariana Apartments, 2007-NMCA-003, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 131 , 151 P.3d 903 (“To 12 preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert 13 the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction.” (internal quotation 14 marks and citation omitted)), aff’d on other grounds by 2008-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 1, 24 , 15 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664 ; City of Albuquerque v. Ackerman, 82 N.M. 360, 364 , 16 482 P.2d 63, 67 (1971) (same). 17 Alternatively, Defendants argue that this is an issue for fundamental error 18 review, on the grounds that there is “ 2012Heath v. La 11 Mariana Apartments, 2007-NMCA-003, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 131 , 151 P.3d 903 (“To 12 preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert 13 the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction.” (internal quotation 14 marks and citation omitted)), aff’d on other grounds by 2008-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 1, 24 , 15 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664 ; City of Albuquerque v. Ackerman, 82 N.M. 360, 364 , 16 482 P.2d 63, 67 (1971) (same). 17 Alternatively, Defendants argue that this is an issue for fundamental error 18 review, on the grounds that there is “ | 1 | 1 |
Sturgeon v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2001See id.; see also Sturgeon v. Clark, 69 N.M. 132, 139 , 364 P.2d 757, 761 (1961) (holding that in order to preserve error in jury instruction, objection cannot be made in mere general terms); Andrus v. Gas Co., 110 N.M. 593, 597 , 798 P.2d 194, 198 (Ct.App.1990) ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction."). 2001See id.; see also Sturgeon v. Clark, 69 N.M. 132, 139 , 364 P.2d 757, 761 (1961) (holding that in order to preserve error in jury instruction, objection cannot be made in mere general terms); Andrus v. Gas Co., 110 N.M. 593, 597 , 798 P.2d 194, 198 (Ct.App.1990) ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction."). | 1 | 1 |
Salinas v. John Deere Co.green1 sentence1990See Salinas v. John Deere Co., 103 N.M. 336 , 707 P.2d 27 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Salinas v. John Deere Co., Inc.green1 sentence1990See Salinas v. John Deere Co., 103 N.M. 336 , 707 P.2d 27 (Ct.App.1984). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2012Comm’rs, 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 41 , 130 22 1 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027 (“[Fundamental error] applies only in exceptional 2 circumstances, such as when substantial justice was not done, the court was deprived 3 of jurisdiction to hear the case, the issue was one of general public interest that would 4 impact a large number of litigants, or, there was a total absence of anything in the 5 record of the case showing a right to relief.” (internal quotation marks and citation 6 omitted)). 2012Comm’rs, 2001-NMCA-065, ¶ 41 , 130 22 1 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027 (“[Fundamental error] applies only in exceptional 2 circumstances, such as when substantial justice was not done, the court was deprived 3 of jurisdiction to hear the case, the issue was one of general public interest that would 4 impact a large number of litigants, or, there was a total absence of anything in the 5 record of the case showing a right to relief.” (internal quotation marks and citation 6 omitted)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Heath ex rel. Heath v. La Mariana Apartments
green
2 sentences2012Heath v. La 11 Mariana Apartments, 2007-NMCA-003, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 131 , 151 P.3d 903 (“To 12 preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert 13 the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction.” (internal quotation 14 marks and citation omitted)), aff’d on other grounds by 2008-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 1, 24 , 15 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664 ; City of Albuquerque v. Ackerman, 82 N.M. 360, 364 , 16 482 P.2d 63, 67 (1971) (same). 17 Alternatively, Defendants argue that this is an issue for fundamental error 18 review, on the grounds that there is “ 2012Heath v. La 11 Mariana Apartments, 2007-NMCA-003, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 131 , 151 P.3d 903 (“To 12 preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert 13 the district court to the particular vice in the defective instruction.” (internal quotation 14 marks and citation omitted)), aff’d on other grounds by 2008-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 1, 24 , 15 143 N.M. 657 , 180 P.3d 664 ; City of Albuquerque v. Ackerman, 82 N.M. 360, 364 , 16 482 P.2d 63, 67 (1971) (same). 17 Alternatively, Defendants argue that this is an issue for fundamental error 18 review, on the grounds that there is “ | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.