firm motion (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

firm motion in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2024 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Computer One, Inc. v. Grisham & Lawless P.A.green
nm · 2008 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Relying on Bennett v. 4 Kisluk, 1991-NMSC-060 , 112 N.M. 221 , 814 P.2d 89 , and Rule 1-013(A) (stating the 5 elements of a compulsory counterclaim), it first determined that Computer One’s 6 malpractice claim was not a compulsory counterclaim to the Firm’s motion for a 7 charging lien because there was no adversarial relationship between Computer One 8 and the Firm sufficient “to impose upon the client the preclusive effect of Rule 1- 9 013(A).” Computer One, Inc., 2008-NMSC-038 ¶¶ 20, 25, 28 .

2013Relying on Bennett v. Kisluk, 1991-NMSC-060 , 112 N.M. 221 , 814 P.2d 89 , and Rule 1-013(A) (stating the elements of a compulsory counterclaim), it first determined that Computer One’s malpractice claim was not a compulsory counterclaim to the Firm’s motion for a charging lien because there was no adversarial relationship between Computer One and the Firm sufficient “to impose upon the client the preclusive effect of Rule 1-013(A).” Computer One, Inc., 2008-NMSC-038 ¶¶ 20, 25, 28 .

24
Alcantar v. Sanchezgreen
nmctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See Alcantar v. Sanchez, 2011- NMCA-073, ¶ 59, 150 N.M. 146 , 257 P.3d 966 (noting that to preserve an issue for appeal, a party must clearly raise that issue in the district court and invoke a ruling from that court).

2024See Alcantar v. Sanchez, 2011- NMCA-073, ¶ 59, 150 N.M. 146 , 257 P.3d 966 (noting that to preserve an issue for appeal, a party must clearly raise that issue in the district court and invoke a ruling from that court).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Bennett v. Kisluk green
nm · 1991
2 sentences

2013Relying on Bennett v. Kisluk, 1991-NMSC-060 , 112 N.M. 221 , 814 P.2d 89 , and Rule 1-013(A) (stating the elements of a compulsory counterclaim), it first determined that Computer One’s malpractice claim was not a compulsory counterclaim to the Firm’s motion for a charging lien because there was no adversarial relationship between Computer One and the Firm sufficient “to impose upon the client the preclusive effect of Rule 1-013(A).” Computer One, Inc., 2008-NMSC-038 ¶¶ 20, 25, 28 .

2013Relying on Bennett v. Kisluk, 1991-NMSC-060 , 112 N.M. 221 , 814 P.2d 89 , and Rule 1-013(A) (stating the elements of a compulsory counterclaim), it first determined that Computer One’s malpractice claim was not a compulsory counterclaim to the Firm’s motion for a charging lien because there was no adversarial relationship between Computer One and the Firm sufficient “to impose upon the client the preclusive effect of Rule 1-013(A).” Computer One, Inc., 2008-NMSC-038 ¶¶ 20, 25, 28 .

42013–2013
Swift v. Smith, Dixon & Co. neutral
md · 1886
2 sentences

1925It then declared: "We need not go beyond the limits of Maryland for adjudged cases sustaining the right of a creditor or others Sn an appropriate case and in furtherance of the ends of justice, to treat the debtor corporation and the individual owning all its stock and assets as identical.” In Swift v. Smith, 65 Md. 428 , 5 A. 534 , 57 Am.

1925It then declared: "We need not go beyond the limits of Maryland for adjudged cases sustaining the right of a creditor or others Sn an appropriate case and in furtherance of the ends of justice, to treat the debtor corporation and the individual owning all its stock and assets as identical.” In Swift v. Smith, 65 Md. 428 , 5 A. 534 , 57 Am.

11925–1925

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 11u.s.c.1109 (4) USC § 11u.s.c.1121 (4) USC § 11u.s.c.330 (4) USC § 28u.s.c.1334 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CT 35 (1995–2021) PA 29 (1865–2025) NY 16 (1857–2011) GA 13 (1965–2025) IL 12 (1980–2024) LA 9 (1974–2018) CA 9 (1997–2016) NJ 8 (1968–2025) DC 8 (1995–2008) MI 7 (1967–2024) TX 7 (1980–2020) FL 6 (1974–2026) MA 6 (1918–2019) NM 6 (1925–2024) AR 5 (1981–2002) MD 5 (1999–2022) MO 5 (1886–2002) OR 5 (1979–2019) MT 4 (1922–2006) WV 4 (1898–1981) OK 3 (1981–2017) KY 3 (1954–2021) AL 3 (1921–1956) IA 3 (1887–1951) ID 3 (1955–1989) ME 3 (1998–2022) MN 2 (1928–1990) WY 2 (2021–2022) AK 2 (1974–1991) IN 2 (1979–1980) VA 2 (1959–2019) VT 2 (1982–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check