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 1998–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kamaratos v. Paliasgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. 2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Haynes v. Kudergreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. 2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielsongreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. 2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Hodges v. Reasonovergreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. 2016See, e.g., Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 256 Cal. Rptr. 6, 10 (Ct. App. 1989); Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286, 1291-92 (D.C. 1991) (but concluding that the text of the clause itself, which referred to “the unavailability of court action” sufficiently conveyed all the information necessary); Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So. 3d 1069, 1077-78 (La. 2012); see also Kamaratos v. Palias, 821 A.2d 531, 538-39 (N.J. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stang v. Hertz Corporation
green
2 sentences2019Id. {30} Statutes must be construed “so that no word and no part thereof is rendered surplusage or superfluous.” Stang v. Hertz Corp., 1970-NMSC-048 , ¶ 13, 81 N.M. 348 , 467 P.2d 14 . 2019Id. {30} Statutes must be construed “so that no word and no part thereof is rendered surplusage or superfluous.” Stang v. Hertz Corp., 1970-NMSC-048 , ¶ 13, 81 N.M. 348 , 467 P.2d 14 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Investment Co. of the Southwest v. Reese
green
1 sentence2019Id. {30} Statutes must be construed “so that no word and no part thereof is rendered surplusage or superfluous.” Stang v. Hertz Corp., 1970-NMSC-048 , ¶ 13, 81 N.M. 348 , 467 P.2d 14 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2011NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-19 (1997); State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 7 446, 448, 774 P.2d 440 , 442 (1989). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Ortega
green
1 sentence2000Although Use Note 3 to the UJI acknowledges that Padilla defined unlawful conduct as that which “meaningfully challenges” an officer’s authority, the text of the instruction omits the term “meaningfully.” Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Williamson v. United States
green
2 sentences1998As a result, the Court concluded that there must be a statement-by-statement inquiry to determine, utilizing the text of the rule, whether "`a reasonable *1272 person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.'" Id. at 603-04 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)). {12} Of course, we are not bound in our interpretation of our Rules of Evidence by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous provisions in the Federal Rules of Evidence. 1998As a result, the Court concluded that there must be a statement-by-statement inquiry to determine, utilizing the text of the rule, whether "`a reasonable *1272 person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.'" Id. at 603-04 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)). {12} Of course, we are not bound in our interpretation of our Rules of Evidence by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous provisions in the Federal Rules of Evidence. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.