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 1919–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. AUGUSTIN M.green2 sentences2004The State’s concern that the witness would decline to answer or commit perjury to avoid answering in the event the defense explored certain areas is nothing over which the district court had any control. {14} In State v. Augustin M., 2003-NMCA-065, ¶¶ 64-65, 67 , 133 N.M. 636 , 68 P.3d 182 , we held that the State did not have the right to appeal the district court’s ruling that a criminal defendant had the right to present a religious-use defense to a drug charge, although it had the right to appeal a dismissal of the charge on the ground that such a defense was not presented to the grand jur 2004The State’s concern that the witness would decline to answer or commit perjury to avoid answering in the event the defense explored certain areas is nothing over which the district court had any control. {14} In State v. Augustin M., 2003-NMCA-065, ¶¶ 64-65, 67 , 133 N.M. 636 , 68 P.3d 182 , we held that the State did not have the right to appeal the district court’s ruling that a criminal defendant had the right to present a religious-use defense to a drug charge, although it had the right to appeal a dismissal of the charge on the ground that such a defense was not presented to the grand jur | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melendrezgreen2 sentences1997The best the State can do is cite to what it agrees is dictum in State v. Melendrez, 49 N.M. 181, 191 , 159 P.2d 768, 775 (1945) (alteration in original), quoting in turn from a 1909 Kansas case, State v. Pigg, 80 Kan. 481 , 103 P. 121, 122 (1909) to the effect that ‘“The right of the state to introduce evidence at a prehminary examination cannot be defeated by the accused waiving an examination.’ ” However, the issue before our Supreme Court in Melendrez was not whether the state could compel such a purported right over an accused’s waiver, and the Supreme Court did not discuss the matter. 1997The best the State can do is cite to what it agrees is dictum in State v. Melendrez, 49 N.M. 181, 191 , 159 P.2d 768, 775 (1945) (alteration in original), quoting in turn from a 1909 Kansas case, State v. Pigg, 80 Kan. 481 , 103 P. 121, 122 (1909) to the effect that ‘“The right of the state to introduce evidence at a prehminary examination cannot be defeated by the accused waiving an examination.’ ” However, the issue before our Supreme Court in Melendrez was not whether the state could compel such a purported right over an accused’s waiver, and the Supreme Court did not discuss the matter. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wilcoxgreen2 sentences1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al 1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pigggreen2 sentences1997The best the State can do is cite to what it agrees is dictum in State v. Melendrez, 49 N.M. 181, 191 , 159 P.2d 768, 775 (1945) (alteration in original), quoting in turn from a 1909 Kansas case, State v. Pigg, 80 Kan. 481 , 103 P. 121, 122 (1909) to the effect that ‘“The right of the state to introduce evidence at a prehminary examination cannot be defeated by the accused waiving an examination.’ ” However, the issue before our Supreme Court in Melendrez was not whether the state could compel such a purported right over an accused’s waiver, and the Supreme Court did not discuss the matter. 1997The best the State can do is cite to what it agrees is dictum in State v. Melendrez, 49 N.M. 181, 191 , 159 P.2d 768, 775 (1945) (alteration in original), quoting in turn from a 1909 Kansas case, State v. Pigg, 80 Kan. 481 , 103 P. 121, 122 (1909) to the effect that ‘“The right of the state to introduce evidence at a prehminary examination cannot be defeated by the accused waiving an examination.’ ” However, the issue before our Supreme Court in Melendrez was not whether the state could compel such a purported right over an accused’s waiver, and the Supreme Court did not discuss the matter. | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Daley v. Morangreen2 sentences1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al 1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al | 1 | 1 |
Porch v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al 1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hobengreen2 sentences1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al 1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marchettigreen2 sentences1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al 1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dollens v. Wells Fargo Bank
green
1 sentence2020Dollens I, 2015-NMCA-096, ¶¶ 13-18 . {7} Second, we reversed the award of attorney fees holding that the district court had not afforded Wells Fargo a meaningful opportunity to litigate that issue. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Albero
neutral
1 sentence1997Daley v. Moran, 94 Ill.2d 41 , 67 Ill.Dec. 790, 793 , 445 N.E.2d 270, 273 (1983) (citing to state statute entitling prosecutor to demand preliminary examination in the event of waiver by defendant); State v. Marchetti, 247 La. 649 , 173 So.2d 531, 536 (1965) (citing statute stating “ ‘[ejither the state or the defendant shall have the right to demand a preliminary examination’ ” (quoting LSA-R.S. 15:154)); People v. Wilcox, 303 Mich. 287 , 6 N.W.2d 518, 521 (1942) (stating that the criminal code provided that both the state and the accused shall be entitled to prompt examination); People v. Al | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Shamblin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1990Its hybrid definition of "single occurrence" is as follows: "[A]ll injuries proximately caused by the governmental agency's successive negligent acts or omissions that combined concurrently to create a singular, separate, and unitary risk of harm fell within the meaning of a `single occurrence' when triggered by the discrete event of one runaway truck." (Emphasis added.) I believe a simpler and more practical approach is to determine whether there has been but "one event of an unfortunate character that takes place without one's *265 foresight or expectation." Shamblin, 332 S.E.2d at 644 . 1990Its hybrid definition of “single occurrence” is as follows: “[A]ll injuries proximately caused by the governmental agency’s successive negligent acts or omissions that combined concurrently to create a singular, separate, and unitary risk of harm fell within the meaning of a ‘single occurrence’ when triggered by the discrete event of one runaway truck.” (Emphasis added.) I believe a simpler and more practical approach is to determine whether there has been but “one event of an unfortunate character that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation.” Shamblin, 332 S.E.2d at 644 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Barboa
green
2 sentences1975The decision as to what remedy is appropriate in the event the rule is violated is in the discretion of the trial judge, State v. Barboa, 84 N.M. 675 , 506 P.2d 1222 (Ct. App. 1973); and the controlling consideration is prejudice to the complaining party. 1975The decision as to what remedy is appropriate in the event the rule is violated is in the discretion of the trial judge, State v. Barboa, 84 N.M. 675 , 506 P.2d 1222 (Ct. App. 1973); and the controlling consideration is prejudice to the complaining party. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Romero
green
2 sentences1975State v. Barboa, supra; State v. Romero, 69 N.M. 187 , 365 P.2d 58 (1961). 1975State v. Barboa, supra; State v. Romero, 69 N.M. 187 , 365 P.2d 58 (1961). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Spencer v. Gross, Kelly & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1919No objection was interposed by appellant to the giving of this instruction, and no exception saved, and under the familiar rule that, where the vice in an instruction is not pointed out to the trial court and proper exceptions saved, in the event the instruction is given, this court will not review error predicted upon the giving of the same (Spencer v. Gross Kelly & Co., 22 N. M. 433, 163 Pac. 1087 ; Tietjen v. McCoy, 24 N. M. 94, 172 Pac. 1042 ), this question is not here for review. [10,11] The third point urged is that the court erred in admitting in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibit B, for the | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Tietjen v. McCoy
green
1 sentence1919No objection was interposed by appellant to the giving of this instruction, and no exception saved, and under the familiar rule that, where the vice in an instruction is not pointed out to the trial court and proper exceptions saved, in the event the instruction is given, this court will not review error predicted upon the giving of the same (Spencer v. Gross Kelly & Co., 22 N. M. 433, 163 Pac. 1087 ; Tietjen v. McCoy, 24 N. M. 94, 172 Pac. 1042 ), this question is not here for review. [10,11] The third point urged is that the court erred in admitting in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibit B, for the | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.