first time claim (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

first time claim in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2021 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico.

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Heien v. North Carolina green
scotus · 2014
2 sentences

2017Defendant couches his new argument as responding to the State's citation in its answer brief to Heien v. North Carolina , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 530 , 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014), as support for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution permits investigatory traffic stops by officers based on mistakes of law.

2017Defendant couches his new argument as responding to the State's citation in its answer brief to Heien v. North Carolina , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 530 , 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014), as support for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution permits investigatory traffic stops by officers based on mistakes of law.

22017–2017
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water Commissioners green
colo · 1982
1 sentence

2021Colo. River Water Conservation Dist., 640 P.2d at 1143 . {48} Mendenhall for the first time applied the doctrine of relation to underground water sources through a court decision.

12021–2021
State v. Elliott green
nmctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2006We therefore hold that because Rendall raised his conspiracy, RICO, and antitrust claims against Merrill Lynch for the first time at the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration, but did not at that time argue that those claims involving third parties were not subject to arbitration, he did not “specifically apprise} ] the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invoke} ] an intelligent ruling thereon.” Id.

12006–2006
Shovelin v. CENTRAL NM ELEC. CO-OP. green
nm · 1993
2 sentences

1995After reviewing other jurisdictions and authorities on the issue, we concluded that “administrative adjudicative determinations may be given preclusive effect if rendered under conditions in which the parties have the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue at the administrative hearing.” Shovelin, 115 N.M. at 298 , 850 P.2d at 1001 .

1995After reviewing other jurisdictions and authorities on the issue, we concluded that “administrative adjudicative determinations may be given preclusive effect if rendered under conditions in which the parties have the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue at the administrative hearing.” Shovelin, 115 N.M. at 298 , 850 P.2d at 1001 .

11995–1995
State v. Gunzelman green
nm · 1973
2 sentences

1974State v. Gunzelman, 85 N.M. 295 , 512 P.2d 55 (1973).

1974State v. Gunzelman, 85 N.M. 295 , 512 P.2d 55 (1973).

11974–1974

Where else courts name it

CA 53 (1898–2026) IL 42 (1878–2026) PA 29 (1958–2025) NY 26 (1888–2023) FL 24 (1937–2026) MA 18 (1893–2024) TX 16 (1957–2025) OH 15 (1950–2025) GA 14 (1901–2017) CO 8 (1984–2026) MO 8 (1908–2021) DE 7 (2019–2024) WA 7 (1972–2019) MS 7 (1982–2021) LA 6 (1893–2018) NJ 6 (1958–2025) NC 6 (1923–2025) SC 6 (1927–2024) MI 6 (1876–2026) NM 6 (1974–2021) MD 6 (1967–1988) UT 6 (2002–2022) IA 5 (1883–2026) OR 5 (1908–1999) AL 5 (1852–2014) OK 5 (1903–2023) VA 5 (1959–2024) CT 4 (1989–2017) AR 4 (1922–1983) AK 4 (1996–2026) MN 4 (1960–2016) ME 3 (1988–2008) NV 3 (1970–2014) KY 3 (1966–2025) WV 3 (2010–2014) IN 3 (1996–2024) KS 3 (1995–2019) ND 2 (1912–1995) AZ 2 (1991–2018) ID 2 (1991–2012) WI 2 (1992–2012) TN 2 (2011–2012) HI 2 (1907–2016)

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