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 1996–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sangre De Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fegreen2 sentences1996At the hearing, the court expressed its reliance on Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343, 347 , 503 P.2d 323, 327 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 1900 , 36 L.Ed.2d 400 (1973), a case which held under state law that principles of common law sovereign immunity preclude a state court from issuing an injunction against a municipality. 1996At the hearing, the court expressed its reliance on Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343, 347 , 503 P.2d 323, 327 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 1900 , 36 L.Ed.2d 400 (1973), a case which held under state law that principles of common law sovereign immunity preclude a state court from issuing an injunction against a municipality. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Senagreen1 sentence2026See Sena, 2020-NMSC-011, ¶ 15 (noting that a trial court abuses it discretion if “its discretionary decision is premised on a misapprehension of the law” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {33} However, even if we concluded that the district court had the authority to issue findings of fact for Defendant’s untimely posttrial IAC motion, Defendant provides no support for the exercise of this authority being mandatory. | 1 | 1 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2012In the alternative, the State argued that if the district court found the case was of intermediate complexity, the balancing test under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), also required rejection of the motion. {12} The district court conducted a hearing which began with the judge asking defense counsel about the alleged prejudice to her client. 2012In the alternative, the State argued that if the district court found the case was of intermediate complexity, the balancing test under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), also required rejection of the motion. {12} The district court conducted a hearing which began with the judge asking defense counsel about the alleged prejudice to her client. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2011Even though 12 defense counsel argued that Defendant was unable to bail himself out of jail and that 13 he was placed on electronic monitoring, those arguments do not establish a factual 14 basis on which Defendant could have based his equal protection claim because 15 “arguments of counsel are not evidence.” See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 16 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 ; see also State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 22 , 122 17 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (holding that to establish a state or federal constitutional claim 18 a defendant must establish a factual basis in order for the court to r 2011Even though 12 defense counsel argued that Defendant was unable to bail himself out of jail and that 13 he was placed on electronic monitoring, those arguments do not establish a factual 14 basis on which Defendant could have based his equal protection claim because 15 “arguments of counsel are not evidence.” See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 16 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 ; see also State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 22 , 122 17 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (holding that to establish a state or federal constitutional claim 18 a defendant must establish a factual basis in order for the court to r | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kingston v. McLaughlin
green
2 sentences1996At the hearing, the court expressed its reliance on Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343, 347 , 503 P.2d 323, 327 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 1900 , 36 L.Ed.2d 400 (1973), a case which held under state law that principles of common law sovereign immunity preclude a state court from issuing an injunction against a municipality. 1996At the hearing, the court expressed its reliance on Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343, 347 , 503 P.2d 323, 327 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 1900 , 36 L.Ed.2d 400 (1973), a case which held under state law that principles of common law sovereign immunity preclude a state court from issuing an injunction against a municipality. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Central Railroad v. Baker
green
2 sentences1996At the hearing, the court expressed its reliance on Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343, 347 , 503 P.2d 323, 327 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 1900 , 36 L.Ed.2d 400 (1973), a case which held under state law that principles of common law sovereign immunity preclude a state court from issuing an injunction against a municipality. 1996At the hearing, the court expressed its reliance on Sangre de Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 84 N.M. 343, 347 , 503 P.2d 323, 327 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 938 , 93 S.Ct. 1900 , 36 L.Ed.2d 400 (1973), a case which held under state law that principles of common law sovereign immunity preclude a state court from issuing an injunction against a municipality. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Lujan v. City of Albuquerque
green
1 sentence2013The 11 district court did not enter the summary judgments solely on the basis of Plaintiff’s 12 technical violation of the rule; instead, it determined that Lowe and Campbell/DLR 13 had established undisputed material facts that Plaintiff failed to controvert and, 14 consequently, that Lowe and Campbell/DLR were entitled to summary judgment. 15 This was entirely consistent with Lujan, which stated that “[b]efore entry of an order 16 granting summary judgment, the district court must assess whether, on the merits, the 17 moving party satisfied the burden under Rule 1-056(C).” Lujan, 2003-NMCA-1 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Muse v. Muse
green
2 sentences2011Even though 12 defense counsel argued that Defendant was unable to bail himself out of jail and that 13 he was placed on electronic monitoring, those arguments do not establish a factual 14 basis on which Defendant could have based his equal protection claim because 15 “arguments of counsel are not evidence.” See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 16 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 ; see also State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 22 , 122 17 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (holding that to establish a state or federal constitutional claim 18 a defendant must establish a factual basis in order for the court to r 2011Even though 12 defense counsel argued that Defendant was unable to bail himself out of jail and that 13 he was placed on electronic monitoring, those arguments do not establish a factual 14 basis on which Defendant could have based his equal protection claim because 15 “arguments of counsel are not evidence.” See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 16 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 ; see also State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 22 , 122 17 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (holding that to establish a state or federal constitutional claim 18 a defendant must establish a factual basis in order for the court to r | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.