inapplicable defense (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

inapplicable defense in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2024 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
State v. Nietogreen
nm · 2000 · cited in 5 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2011–2013
2 sentences

2013See State v. Nieto, 2000-NMSC-031 , ¶ 17, 129 N.M. 688 , 12 P.3d 442 (stating that a requested instruction that presented an inapplicable defense was properly denied because it was a misstatement of law).

2013See State v. Nieto, 2000-NMSC-031 , ¶ 17, 129 N.M. 688 , 12 P.3d 442 (stating that a requested instruction that presented an inapplicable defense was properly denied because it was a misstatement of law).

55
Dunn v. Brandtgreen
nmctapp · 2019 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See Dunn, 2019-NMCA-061, ¶ 10 (recognizing that a wrongful denial occurs when an agency fails to produce responsive documents based on an inapplicable privilege or statutory exemption but that a denial is not wrongful if it is “in accordance with an enforceable court order”); Edenburn v. N.M.

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 (1)

CaseCitedYears
Edenburn v. New Mexico Department of Health green
nmctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2024Dep’t of Health, 2013- NMCA-045, ¶ 40, 299 P.3d 424 (recognizing that a wrongful denial occurred when an agency relied on a privilege negated by precedent); see also City of Las Cruces v. Pub.

12024–2024

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-31-20 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 40-13-6 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-22-14 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 31-19-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 40-13-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 40-13-2 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 40-13-3 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 40-13-4 (3)

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

GA 34 (1924–2024) CA 26 (1892–2025) TX 10 (1986–2025) NM 6 (2011–2024) PA 6 (1998–2025) IL 5 (2006–2020) FL 4 (1966–2018) MO 3 (1968–2014) WA 3 (1919–2001) NY 3 (1984–2022) WV 3 (1948–2025) NJ 3 (1957–2025) ID 2 (1966–1982) NC 2 (2022–2022) KY 2 (1993–2023) CO 2 (1946–2026) UT 2 (1945–2011) OH 2 (2018–2018) KS 2 (1897–2008) OK 2 (1943–1960) WY 2 (1985–2008) MI 2 (2023–2023)

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